UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE SANTA CATARINA
PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO EM LETRAS/INGLÊS E LITERATURA CORRESPONDENTE
CO-CONSTRUCTDiG THE VICTIM IN COUNSELING SESSIONS FOR COUPLES
AT THE WOMEN’S POLICE STATION: A MICROETHNOGRAPHIC STUDY
por
CLARA ZENI CAMARGO DORNELLES
Dissertação submetida à Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina em cumprimento
parcial dos requisitos para obtenção do grau de
MESTRE EM LETRAS
FLORIANOPOLIS
Março de 2000
Esta dissertação de Clara Zeni Camargo Domelles, intutulada COCONSTRUCTING THE VICTIM IN COUNSELDÍG SESSIONS FOR
COUPLES
AT
THE
WOMEN’S
POLICE
STATION:
A
MICROETHNOGRAPHIC STUDY, foi julgada adequada e aprovada em sua
forma final, pelo Programa de Pós-Graduação em Letras/Inglês e Literatura
Correspondente, da Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, para fins de
obtenção do grau de
MESTRE EM LETRAS
Área de concentração: Inglês e Literatura Correspondente
Opção: Língua Inglesa e Lingüística Aplicada
Anelise Reich Courseuil
Coordenadora
BANCA EXAMINADORA:
Viviane M. Heberle
Orientadora e Presidente
I Pedro M. G
Gáfcez
ã^
Examinador
Gloria Gil
Examinadora
Florianópolis, 10 de março de 2000.
111
Àqueles que de alguma maneira contribuíram para que
esta dissertação pudesse existir. E não foram poucos...
IV
“o quê que eu faço, o quê que eu não faço, ”
(Mulher com problema de violência conjugal a
uma das assistentes sociais da Delegacia da Mulher
de Florianópolis, em fevereiro de 1998)
‘O primeiro dever na vida é assumir uma postura e o que
vem a ser o segundo ninguém ainda descobriu
(Oscar Wilde, in Ellman, 1988)
“Eu antes tinha querido ser os outros para conhecer o que não era eu.
Entendi então que eu já tinha sido os outros e isso era fácil. Minha
experiência maior seria ser o outro dos outros: e o outro dos outros era eu
(Clarice Lispector, 1999, p. 23)
“O fulcro do auto-engano não está no esforço de
cada um em parecer o que não é. Ele reside na
capacidade que temos de sentir e de acreditar de
boa-fé que somos o que não somos
(Eduardo Giannetti, 1998, p. 106)
AGRADECIMENTOS
Conversações acadêmicas e/ou amigas, longas ou minutas, reais ou imaginárias
(não menos reais), mas certamente indispensáveis, tive com as pessoas cujos nomes
listo a seguir e a quem devo agredecimentos infindáveis:
Carla, Olga e Lyn, Raquel, Ana Cecília, Gelson, Audrei, Maria do Carmo,
CláudiaM, Mariléa, Mareia, Dóris, Karina, Félix, Adriane, Noélia, a velha turma...
Audrei, CláudiaM, Mariza, Maria do Carmo e Pedro, meus amigos do grupo de
estudos ISE (Interação Social e Etnografia), lugar pra pensar e compartilhar.
Gloria, Maria do Carmo, Nadja, Mariza, ClaudiaB, CláudiaM, Raquel e Vivi,
pelos momentos mais difíceis.
Viviane, Rubens, Murilo, Elisa, Adriane, Sabrina, Ingrid, Cristala, Regina,
diferentes fases da PGI no mesmo grupo, estudando Análise Crítica do Discurso.
Thaís, Genilda, Liane, Alberto, Emi, Maria Paula, Rogério, Iara, Silvana, Fabiana,
Paulo, Francisco todos no mesmo barco...
Vivi, pela compreensão, incentivo, por me mostrar o lado alegre da academia, por
me apresentar, ainda na graduação, ao debate de gênero e pela paciência...
Zé Luiz, pela influência, lá no Pet, na construção de uma perspectiva própria de
entender a linguagem, por acreditar em mim e por me lembrar do Schopenhauer...
Pedro, quem me apresentou a uma nova maneira de entender as ações humanas e a
constituição da sociedade; e me fez perguntas.
Gloria, por compartilhar a vontade de entender e de ter paz.
ClaudiaB e Mareia, pela grande força na reta final.
Rodrigo, tão perto e tão distante, por compartilhar diferenças, incertezas e
vontades-
VI
Izolina e Néron, meus queridos pais, Neronzinho e Débora, Marcio e Mari, não
menos queridos, meus irmãos,. Zeni e João, avós amados; vocês me ajudam a lembrar
que é melhor ser do que querer saber o que se é.
Lucy, Elaine e Wal, não é fácil ser amiga de mestranda...
D. Marli, Sarita e Cláudia, pela tranqüilidade.
Profa. Sônia B. da Silveira, pelas idéias^ referências, pela força.
Vivi, Pedro, Gloria, Audrei, Zé, os primeiros leitores da minha dissertação.
Finalmente, um grande obrigada à Marta, Sueli, Hélia, Olga, assistentes sociais e
investigadora da Delegacia da Mulher de Florianópolis; Lia, Jonas, Jane, Rafael, Soraia,
Paulo, Laura, Marco^ homens e mulheres doing being ordinary, homens e mulheres que
me mostraram um pouco do simples e do complexo de se ser ser-humano.
Agradeço ainda à Capes, pela bolsa concedida por ser ex-integrante do Programa
Especial de Treinamento (Pet) de Letras da UFSC.
Florianópolis, 10 de março de 2000.
Vll
ABSTRACT
CO-CONSTRUCTING THE VICTIM IN COUNSELING SESSIONS FOR COUPLES
AT THE WOMEN’S POLICE STATION: A MICROETHNOGRAPHIC STUDY
CLARA ZENI CAMARGO DORNELLES
UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE SANTA CATARINA
2000
Supervising Professor; Viviane M. Heberle
This study describes naturally occurring counseling interactions in which a couple
with marital problems and a social worker gather to talk about the couple’s problems, at
the Women’s Police Station in Florianópolis^ Brazil. Following the perspectives of talkin-interaction studies and microethnographic methods (Erickson & Shultz, 1981;
Erickson, 1992), I provide a description of the major speech activities (Gumperz, 1982)
and accomplishments of the participants in the event. These activities— mechanics,
problem, advice and agreement talk—were identified through the analysis o f the
participant frameworks (Goodwin, 1990) established by the participants. This analysis
reveals that it is doing problem talk that the participants achieve their main interactional
task; the co-construction of the victim. Besides, it shows that even though the
participants’ actions orient to an institutional agenda (Drew & Heritage, 1992), their
VIU
actual accomplishments may challenge pre-existing social orders of the encounter. After
this, I focus on a participant framework o f problem talk— mediated dispute/cross­
examination— and examine the features of doing face-work (Goffman, 1967) in this
interactional environment. This analysis demonstrates that^ despite the mediation
procedures, the participants o f the interactions studied make an effort to keep their
faces. I then apply the notion of contextualization cues (Gumperz, 1982) to describe the
language resources the participants use to aggravate face-threats. I conclude this thesis
by highlighting the fhiitfulness of the setting studied for new talk-in-interaction
research. I also stress the interdisciplinary aspect o f the present work, which I hope will
contribute to fijlure work o a issues
IX
RESUMO
CO-CONSTRUINDO A VÍTIMA EM SESSÕES D E ORIENTAÇÃO ACA&AIS NA
DELEGACIA D AM ULHEIL UM ESTUDO MICROETNOGRÁFICO
CLARA ZENI CAMARGO DORNELLES
UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL D E SANTA CATARINA
2000
Professora Orientadora: Viviane M. Heberle
Este estudo descreve sessões de orientação em que um casal com problemas
conjugais e uma assistente social se encontram para falar sobre os problemas do casal,
na Delegacia da Mulher de Florianópolis, Brasil, Seguindo perspectivas de estudos da
fala em interação e métodos microetnográficos de pesquisa (Erickson & Shultz, 1981;
Erickson, 1992), descrevo as principais atividades de fa la (Gumperz, 1982) e
realizações dos participantes no evento. Estas atividades— as falas mecânica, sobre o
problema, de conselho e de acordo—-foram identificadas pela análise dos modelos de
participação (Goodwin, 1990) estabelecidos pelos participantes. Esta análise revela que
é na fala sobre o problema que os participantes realizam a sua tarefa interacional mais
importante: a co-construção da vítima. Além disso, mostra que embora as ações dos
participantes se orientem para a pauta institucional (Drew & Heritage, 1992) do
encontro, suas realizações podem desafiar ordens sociais pré-existentes. Depois disso,
concentro a análise em um dos modelos de participação da fala sobre o problema— a
disputa mediada/tribunal— e examino as características do trabalho de face (Goflfman,
1967) nesse ambiente interacional. Esta análise demonstra que os procedimentos de
mediação não são suficientes para evitarem os danos às faces do marido e da esposa, já
que tanto um quanto o outro geralmente usam trabalho de face agressivo; protegem a
própria face ameaçando a do outro. Nesses casos, o trabalho de face se tom a trabalho
moral (Drew, 1998) e ganha a disputa aquele que melhor projeta um eu moralmente
correto e vitimizado. Concluo esta dissertação, enfatizando o valor do encontro social
estudado para novas pesquisas da fala em interação. Enfatizo também o caráter
interdisciplinar do presente trabalho, que espero possa ser útil aos estudos ílituros sobre
questões de vitimização e violência conjugal.
XI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................ ................ vii
RESU M O ................................................................... ............................................................ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................... ..................................v
TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................ xi
KEY TO TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTION............................................................ ......xiii
LIST OF FIG U RES............ ................................................................................................... xiv
CHAPTER 1 IN TRO D U CTIO N ........................................................................................... 1
1. L The social construction of the self................................................................1
1.2. Purposes of the research................................................................................2
1.3. Organization of this thesis............................................................................. 3
CHAPTER 2 THE INTERACTIONAL SOCIOLINGUISTIC APPROACH TO
TH E STUDY OF T A L K ............. ........... .............................................................................6
2.1. Language and the mundane.......................................................................... 7
2.2. Face and face-work: Conceptualizing the phenomena..................... ...... 10
2.2.1. Morality in the face-game......................................................................... 12
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCHER AND RESEARCHED IN COUNSELING
SESSIONS AT THE W OM EN’S PO LIC E STATION
15
3.1. A brief historical account of the Women’s Police Stations in Brazil....16
3.2. The context of investigation....................................................................... 18
3.2.1. The encounters......................................................................................... 22
3.2.2. The participants........................................................................................24
3.3. Entering the field..........................................................................................29
3.3.1. Collecting the d a ta ................................. ..................................................30
3.4. Procedures for data adjustments and analysis......................................... 34
Xll
CHAPTER 4 CO-CONSTRUCTING (ACTS AND RO LES ON) TH E STAGE:
COUNSELING INTERACTION AND THE HIDDEN AGENDA
36
4.L Counseling interaction and its major constituents................................... 37
4.L1. Mechanics talk and the ritual o rd er........................................................38
4.1.2. Problem talk: In search of the problem and the victim ........................43
4.1.3. Advice talk: In search of solutions......................................................... 59
4.1.4. Agreement talk: Reaching the e n d ...........................................................62
4.2. Exploring the discrepant................................................. .......................... 65
CHAPTER 5 M AKING A GOOD SHOW ING OF O N E ’S OW N SELF : AN
ANALYSIS OF FACE-W O RK IN DISPUTES FO R TH E V ICTIM -R O LE
69
5.1. Face-work in counseling interaction disputes...........................................70
5.1.1. The aggressive use of face-work in mediated disputes.......................71
5.1.1.]. Aggravating face-threats.......................................................................79
CHAPTER 6 FINAL R E M A R K S .............. ......................................... ...............................89
6.1..Summary...................................................................................................... 89
6.2. Remarks on findings.....................................................................................91
6.3. Research methods: The ethics of my w o rk ............................................... 92
6.4. Limitations and implications of this thesis............................................... 93
REFERENCES........................................................................................................................ 96
APPENDIX A ....................................................................................................................... 104
APPEN DIXB........................................................................ ...............................................128
xin
KEY TO TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS^
DS 1
from data segment 1
SW’
social worker Marta
SW^
social worker Sueli
indicates falling intonation
?
indicates rising intonation
indicates continuing intonation
[
indicates overlapped speech
=[
indicates simultaneous speech
=
indicates contiguous utterances
(.)
indicates micro-pause of less than 1 second
indicates extension of sounds
!
indicates an animated tone
T -I
indicate marked falling and rising shifts in intonation
° °
indicate quieter talk
((pause))
indicates pause longer than micro-pause
{(italics))
indicates details of the conversation
(word)
indicates uncertain transcription or uncertain speaker
(
indicates unintelligible words
)
underlying
indicates emphasis
CAPS
indicate louder talk
omitted talk
Transcription convention adapted ftom Jefferson (1984).
XIV
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE I - LAYOUT OF THE SETTING STUDIED
_______ ____________ __ 23
FIGURE 2 - PARTICIPANT FRAMEWORK IN MECHANICS TA LK ......................42
FIGURE 3 - PARTICIPANT FRAMEWORK IN MEDIATED DISPUTE
............ 53
FIGURE 4 - PARTICIPANT FRAMEWORK IN DIRECT D ISPU TE.......................... 58
FIGURE 5 - PARTICIPANT FRAMEWORKIN ADVICE TALK__________ _____ 62
FIGURE 6 - PARTICIPANT FRAMEWORK IN AGREEMENT TALK......................63
FIGURE 7 - GRAPH OF SPEECH A CTIV ITES AND TASKS ................. ................. 64
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
'‘Eu sou mil possíveis em mim; mas não posso me
resignar a querer apenas um deles
(Bastide, cited in Laplantine, 1997, p. 23)‘
“O homem é menos ele que qualquer outro
quando fa la pessoalmente. Dê-lhe uma
máscara, e ele lhe dirá a verdade
(Oscar Wilde, cited in Ellman, 1988, p, 288)
1,1. The social construction o f the self
One of the subjects of great interest to human beings since ancient times is identity.
Far from the old view of identity as unitary, nowadays research in talk-in-interaction has
demonstratèd how it is an interactional achievement rather than a static phenomenon
(Aronsson, 1998; Goodwin, 1990; Erickson & Shultz, 1982; Ochs, 1993). In any actual
situation of language use, participants negotiate their selves and establish relationships
regardless of their concern with these accomplishments. In some situations, however, the
participants may show an effort to project a desirable image of the self and thus to enact
certain roles in the immediate talk. This is the case of the interactions I analyze in the
present study—^the counseling sessions (CSs) for couples held at the Women’s Police
Station in Florianópolis.
The CSs here investigated are headed by a social worker and aim at identifying the
reasons for the marital problems a couple is having at home. Besides, these encounters
also aim at reaching some agreement as regards ways to solve the couple’s conflict. The
kind of problems discussed in counseling interaction are generally related to the
misconduct of one of the partners and thus the general objective of those gatherings is to
change people’s conduct. In accounting for her/his own and the partner’s conduct^ one is
likely to present the self favorably and the other unfavorably, causing participants to
engage in a highly morally loaded activity. This corroborates Drew’s (1998) claim that
any consideration of the accountability of social conduct brings directly into focus
moral dimensions of language use: in the (interactional) circumstances in which we
report our own or others’ conduct, our descriptions are themselves accountable
phenomena through which we recognizably display an action’s (im)propriety,
(in)correctness, (un)suitability, (in)appropriateness, (in)justice, (dis)honesty, and so
forth, (p. 295)
Within such a conflicting interactional context, taking care o f the self—“the ritually
delicate object” (Goffman, 1967, p. 31)—^becomes a hard task. Previous studies have
shown how diflRciilt it is to save fe.ce—the interactional self—in situations in which the
participants deal with delicate topics. Linell and Bredmar (1996), for instance, have
shown how midwives and expectant mothers are careful in dealing with potential facethreats. They often use interactional strategies like indirectness and mitigation to protect
each other’s face. This type o f face-relationship seems to be very different from what
happens in the CSs I studied, where wife and husband become self-righteous. As far as I
am concerned, there is no study that focuses on the analysis of face-work in conflicting
interchanges such as the ones which compose the data of the present study. Studying a
social situation like CSs is revealing as regards “how far a person should go to save his
face” (Goffman, 1967, p. 9).
1.2. Purposes of this study
Following an interdisciplinary perspective, the present study correlates discussions
and findings from three distinct and overlapping research traditions: interactional
“ This excerpt was- qnotedbyLaplanting fironr Roger Bastide^”sAnatomta de-André Gtde.
sociolinguistics, conversational analysis and ethnographic microanalysis o f interaction.
The general purpose of this thesis may be regarded as an attempt to comprehend how a
couple with marital problems and a social worker negotiate their identities and
accomplish institutional goals in a setting in which the couple is called upon to account
for their social behavior. As for the specific purposes, they^are twofold. First, to examine
the social organization and accomplishments of naturally occurring counseling
interactions in which a couple and a social worker gather to talk about the couple’s
problems. Second, to investigate how the protagonists of counseling sessions, that is,
husband and wife, manage to maintain their faces when having to talk about their
conduct to a third party by using a moral loaded activity— complaints.
Research questions
The following questions are the point of departure for the present study;
1. What takes place in initial counseling sessions? What are the main accomplishments of
the participants? What is typical/atypical in these sessions? How is institutionality
made relevant by the participants (if at all)?
2. How is face-work carried out in the counseling interactions studied? What is the role
morality plays in the face game?
1.3. Organization of this thesis
Chapter 2^ The interactional sociolinguistic approach to the study o f talk^ presents
an overview of the theoretical perspective that underlies my viewpoint regarding talk-ininteraction. The chapter is divided in two sections. In the first, I make a brief review on
basic assumptions of interactional sociolinguistic studies, such as the co-constructive and
situated nature o f interaction. In the second part of the chapter, I present Goffman’s
(1959, 1967) theorizations on face and face-work. Later on, I correlate Goffman’s
reflections to recent studies on the interrelation of morality and discourse (Bergmann,
1998; Linell & Bredmar, 1996), showing that the role of morality in the co-construction
o f face may be strengthened in some interactions.
In chapter 3, Researcher and researched in counseling sessions at the W omen’s
Police Station, I initially give a brief historical account of the Women’s Police Stations in
Brazil. Then, I move on to a general description of counseling sessions, situating them
within the social practice o f the WPS in Florianópolis. After this, I give a general
description of the setting and of the activities participants carry out through talk. Later
on I present the participants, giving a brief account of their biographies. After this, I
explain how I managed to enter the field as well as how I proceeded during fieldwork.
Finally, I describe the methodological procedures adopted for interactional data
adjustments.
In chapter 4, Co-constructing (acts and roles on) the stage: Counseling
interaction and the hidden agenda, I apply Goodwin’s (1990) notion o f participant
framework in an attempt to investigate the social organization of the counseling sessions
that compose my data. I describe then the four speech activities I have identified in the
event, which are mechanics talk, problem talk, advice talk and agreement talk. Along the
description I discuss the main accomplishments of participants and the way interactants
orient to or challenge the institutional mandate of counseling interaction.
Chapter 5, Making a good showing o f one’s own self: An analysis o f face-work in
disputes fo r the victim-role^ presents the analysis of the aggressive use o f face-work
(Goffman, 1967) which is typical of disputes in counseling interaction. Taking into
account previous studies that deal with the relation between mediation and face, I
initially discuss the face-relationships the mediation procedures provide for the
participants of the setting I studied. After this, I apply Gumperz’s notion of
contextualization cues as a tool to identify the language features involved in the
aggravation of face-threats.
My final remarks are stated in chapter 6, Initially, I summarize the findings of this
thesis. Then I move on to make some remarks on these findings. Next, I make some
comments regarding the microethnographic research methods I followed for data
collection and analysis. This brings into discussion issues related to ethical concerns in
research. Finally, I give suggestions for further research, pointing out the relevances and
the limitations of the present study.
CHAPTER 2
THE INTERACTIONAL SOCIOLINGUISTIC APPROACH TO THE STUDY OF TALK
“...what we perceive and retain in our mind is a function o f
our culturally determined predisposition to perceive and
assimilate”. (Gumperz, 1982, p. 12)
“The individual must rely on others to complete the
picture o f him o f which he himself is allowed to paint
only certain parts ...for a complete man to he expressed,
individuals must hold hands in a chain o f ceremony, each
giving deferentially with proper demeanor to the one on
the right what will be received deferentially from the
others on the left”. (Goffinan, 1967, p.84)
This chapter is divided into two parts. In the first section, I introduce basic
assumptions of the interactional sociolinguistic approach to the study of social interaction.
These assumptions concern the co-constructive (Jacoby & Ochs, 1995) and situated nature
(Gof&nan, 1959, 1963, 1967, 1983; Gumperz, 1982) of interactional actions. In the second
section, I discuss the conceptualization of face and face-work. Initially, I outline Goffman’s
(1959, 1967) perspective on the phenomena. After this, I refer to studies on morality and
discourse (Bergmann, 1998; Linell & Bredmar, 1996), suggesting that there is one facet of
morality which has been neglected in studies of face and face-work, but which may be
crucial for the co-construction of face—the moral duties cade.
2.1. Language and the mundane
Interactional sociolinguistics (IS) is a quite new and interdisciplinary area of research.
It was only around the 1980’s, with the effort of some scholars to construct a theory which
could account “for the communicative function of language variability and for its relation
to speakers’ goals” (Gumperz, 1982, p. 29) that it became established as a research
tradition. The main concern of the area—^the study of the relation among language, society
and culture—is inherited from anthropology, sociology and linguistics (Schiffrin, 1994).
Two major contributors to IS are Gumperz and Goffrnan, a linguistic anthropologist
and a sociologist, respectively. Gumperz has called for a focus on real situations of speech,
instead of an idealized view of language as a bulk of decontextualized sentences. Gumperz
(1982) has directly opposed basic assumptions of linguistic traditions which refer strictly to
abstract features of language (Saussure, 1959) and thus “take into account only a portion of
the totality of communicative signs that may enter into the interpretation of communicative
acts” (p. 16). Gumperz (1982) and Gumperz and his students (1982) have shown how
people from different cultures may miscommunicate exactly because of differences in the
contextualization of speech.
Goffman’s major contribution to talk-in-interaction studies concerns his view of the
situation as a domain in its own right. As he puts it “it is social situations that provide the
natural theater in which all bodily displays are enacted and in which all bodily displays are
read” (1997, p. 239), A social situation begins when two or more individuals meet to share
a “single moving focus of attention” (1967, p. 35) and finishes by the time they separate.
During this social event, people decide “how to behave” (p. 36), by taking into account the
ritual code of the occasion, that is, its rules of talk. These rules may be explicitly
prescribed—as in legal proceedings—or never made explicit, and even so competent
communicators are likely to orient to them so as to preserve the interactional order as well
as the integrity of the self (I discuss this in section 2.2.1.).
Goffman has referred to the definition of the situation as the grounds for interactants’
actions. As he puts it
together the participants contribute to a single over-all definition of the situation
which involves not so much a real agreement as to what exists but rather a real
agreement as to whose claims concerning what issues will be temporarily honored
(Gof&nan, 1959, pp. 9-10).
The definition of the situation is an ongoing process which is dependent on the way
we frame (Gk)fPman, 1986) interaction, that is, on the view we construct for what is going
on in the current moment in talk. It is through defining which roles participants are playing
and which goals are being pursued that we decide what our next action will be. Conflictual
views of what is going on may cause interaction to come to “a confused and embarassed
halt” (p. 12).
Besides drawing on Gumperz and Goffman, IS also builds on findings from
conversation analysis (CA). By analyzing the way people use language in everyday
situations, conversation analysts have discovered that “conversation has...an elaborate and
detailed architecture” (Levinson, 1983) within which there is “order at all points” (Sacks,
cited in Psathas, 1995, p. 8). Another related research approach is the ethnographic
microanalysis of interaction (microethnography), with which IS shares numerous concerns
and assumptions (Garcez, 1997). Microethnography has been especially influential in
defining the important procedures which underly data collection as well data segmentation
(Erickson
& Shultz, 1981; Erickson, 1992). Besides, microethnographers have
demonstrated that interactants’ verbal and nonverbal actions are organized in real-time and
space, which stresses the existence of locally appropriate ways of making sense in social
interaction. IS thus promotes an interest in the study of
the interpenetration of social and linguistic meanings in the conduct of human
interaction. It focuses on the analysis of the production and interpetration of naturally
occuring utterances in situated social context. (Garcez, 1996, p. 49)
Within this perspective, human beings are seen as agents and not “passive robots
living out preprogrammed linguistic ‘rules,’ discourse ‘conventions,’ or cultural
prescriptions for social identities” (Jacoby & Ochs, 1995, pp. 177-178). We are thus beings
that make sense of interactional actions and co-construct (Jacoby & Ochs, 1995) meanings
and our own selves in the unfolding talk. In sum, talk is a mode of action, through which
humans organize themselves and conjointly create “form, interpretation, stance, action,
activity, identity, institution, skill, ideology, emotion, or other culturally meaningful
reality” (Jacoby & Ochs, 1995, p. 171).
Even though I acknowledge the co-constructive nature of human communication, I
believe that there are also constraints which emerge when people are in co-presence,
engaged in what Goflfrnan (1963) calls focused interaction. Therefore, I see conversation
paradoxically as the center of human creativity and the center of social restrictions:
interactants do construct meanings together, but they do not act without some influence of
the social rules inherent to the situation they are in. Competent communicators are able to
play with these rules and to negotiate with co-interactants so as to achieve (desired)
outcomes:
10
2.2. Face and face-work; Conceptualizing the phenomena
‘
The phenomenon of face has captured the interests of researchers from diverse fields
such as communication studies, psychology, anthropology, linguistics and applied
linguistics. Besides a common interest in face, these fields share the challenge of
constructing a coherent view of what they mean by face and related constructs. On the one
hand, it is possible to find in the literature numerous studies that do not specify how face
and face-work are being evoked. On the other hand, numerous scholars have appropriated
the phenomena in quite varied ways.
In the present thesis, my own view of face and face-work are grounded in Gtoffman’s
(1967). The reason for choosing to work with his instead of other scholars’ theorization is
due to the fact that his is a situated account of the phenomena. Goffman defines face as
the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others
assume he has taken during a particular contact... an image of self delineated in terms
of approved social attributes—albeit an image that others may share, as when a
person makes a good showing for his profession or religion by making a good
showing for himself (p. 5)
It is through taking care of preserving each other’s faces that participants contribute
for interaction to flow smoothly. If a conversation breaks down and embarrassment occurs,
participants’ faces are put at risk and they may experiment face loss. A threat to face that is
probably familiar to some of us occurs, for example, when we are talking to a person that is
not our intimate and our stomach rumbles. In a moment like this, we either make some
recognition of the happening (saying something such as Gosh! I ’d better have something to
eat!) or we let it pass, without making any comment on it. In Goffman’s (1967) theory,
both of these actions would be considered face-work actions, since they serve to
“counteract [an incident]—that is, [an event] whose eflfective symbolic implications
11
threaten face”; face-work serves “to make whatever [a person] is doing consistent with
face” (p. 12). The overtly recognition of the rumble would be classified in Goffman’s terms
as corrective face-work. He would name the let it pass technique “tactful blindness” or
“poise”, which are examples of the avoidance process. Another type of face-work which
Goffman elaborates on is the aggressive. Basically, it consists of introducing a threat to
one’s own or to the other’s face in a way to benefit fi'om it. It is like scoring points through
risky moves in a match. An example of aggressive face-work is acting in a way so as to
cause the other to feel guilt and ritual disequilibrium, which is very threatening as “tables
can be turned and the aggressor can lose more than he could have gained had his move won
the point” (p. 25).
According to Goffman, the choice of appropriate face-work and the recognition of a
face-threat involve sharing knowledge, inferencing and presuppositions. To put face-saving
practices in action, interactants rely on their presuppositions of the way others will interpret
such actions. The skilled social actor, the diplomat, is the one that demonstrates both selfrespect and considerateness, that is, s/he shows defensive orientation towards her/his own
face and at the same time protects the other’s. In sum, neither face-threats nor face-saving
practices result from the actions of individuals alone. On the contrary, all these practices are
conjointly negotiated and accomplished. Because of this
in trying to save the face of others, the person must choose a tack that will not lead to
loss of his own; in trying to save his own face, he must consider the loss of face that
his action may entail for others, (p. 14)
As the maintenance of face is to the advantage of all involved in an interchange,
interactants generally share a tacit agreement to cooperate in maintaining each others’ faces
and lines. Therefore, a mutual “working acceptance” (p. 11) of lines and faces is allowed to
12
prevail—an accord without which interaction would be hard to keep. This way, individuals
save their faces and also the situation.
Face is thus a public and cultural construct—an interactional phenomenon. It is
related to self-esteem, sentiments of pride and honor; it is attached to a person’s sense of
self Rather than being a physical entity, face is “diffusely located in the flow o f events” (p.
7) and the amount of concern each participant will have for this is dependent on the rules of
the group and on the definition of the situation. Besides, it is through negotiating faces that
people become acquainted with each other. After talking to a person for the first time, for
example, we generally make some judgement as regards her/his social worth, such as what
a nice person! or how disgusting! These types of assessments result from the facerelationships we establish with others and show how “morality and interaction are deeply
intertwined with each other” (Bergmann, 1998, p. 286). In the next section, I discuss the
relation between face and the moral characteristic of discourse.
2.2.1. Morality in the face-game
Bergmann (1998) points out that social interaction has a proto-moral quality, which
means that any utterance of talk may convey a moral meaning depending on the way it is
contextualized. The same author criticizes language researchers’ skepticism in approaching
this interrelation. One exception to his criticism is Gof&nan’s theorizations on face and the
rituality of interaction. According to Bergmann, Goffman’s view on the relation between
morality and interaction provides for an understanding that
whenever respect and approval (or disrespect and disapproval) for an individual are
communicated, a moral discourse takes place (regardless of the feelings and thoughts
of the participants), (p. 286)
13
In interchanges in which morality comes to the surface of talk, the participants might
take precautions as regards each others’ face. Linell and Bredmar’s (1996) study of
midwives’ and expectant mothers’ interaction shows that in encounters in which sensitive
topics are addressed, participants need to display additional effort to maintain ritual
equilibrium. They define as sensitive or delicate topics those that “cannot be addressed
directly or explicitly by the speaker without endangering the interactional harmony of the
encounter by threatening the listener’s face (and therefore also the speaker’s own face)”
(pp. 347-348). Therefore, interactants in the setting they studied were careful in dealing
with potential face-threats, like asking an expectant mother about her drinking habits—a
lifestyle implicating topic. This may bring into play information that threats the mother’s
social image. Language resources such as indirectness and mitigation are thus used by the
participants to override this sensitiveness. However, as Linell and Bredmar argue, this
language strategy may have a contrary effect, because by addressing issues indirectly to
recontextualize them as nonsensitive, one may reconstruct them as delicate.
But what makes a topic such as drinking to be face-threatening in this social
situation? We cannot affirm that drinking habits is a delicate topic in any setting. Among
drunkards, for instance, this may not be so. The face-threat thus does not result from any
intrinsic value o f the topic, but from the value the participants give to it in relation to other
features of the encounter, such as identity . In the case of the study being discussed, drinking
does not seem to be a behavior a pregnant woman should engage in. This way, I believe
that considerations about how a mother, a father, a doctor or a teacher should behave are
likely to influence the construction of our faces as well as the way we do face-work in any
of these roles. Preti’s (1996) study of face in the discourse of the old-old illustrates this
14
remarkably. He shows how elderly people make an effort to maintain their social image,
which is constantly threatened because of the stigma of age.
Moral issues—or what 1 would call the moral duties code—seem to influence the
face-relationships interactants establish. In Linell and Bredmar’s cited example, it seems
that both parties, that is, midwives and expectant mothers, are interested in maintaing their
own and each other’s face. Nothing more natural, if, as I have said, generally, interactants
do constant work so as to avoid face loss. However, there are situations in which
interactants’ interests may be exactly provoquing face loss, and thus an overdose of moral
invested topics are likely to be provoked. This is the case of the counseling interactions I
studied, in which one person keeps his/her face by threatening the other’s. The mutual
cooperation in face-work is thus replaced by an interplay of face-threatening and facesaving practices (Brown & Levinson, 1987).
In the next chapter, I present the context of investigation— counseling sessions for
couples in a WPS—as well as the steps I have followed, from choosing the field of research
to the procedures for the interactional analysis. In chapter 4, I analyze the major
constituents of counseling interaction and thus segment talk for the description of the
aggressive use of face-work to be developed in chapter 5.
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCHER AND RESEARCHED IN COUNSELING SESSIONS
AT THE WOMEN’S POLICE STATION
“Não podemos chegar à sabedoria fin a l socrática de conhecernos a nós mesmos se nunca deixarmos os estreitos limites dos
costumes, crenças e preconceitos em que todo homem nasceu.
Nada nos pode ensinar melhor lição nesse assunto de máxima
importância do que o hábito mental que nos permite tratar as
crenças e valores de outro homem do seu próprio ponto de vista
(Malinowski, in DaMatta, 1997, p. 6)
In this chapter I give a description o f the social encounters with which I built up
my data. And I say built up because carrying out research following ethnographic
methods entails a great amount of selecting and producing data. Ethnographic
descriptions result from complex relationships between researcher and researched
(Duranti, 1997; Ellen, 1984). Since fieldwork is a “subjective experience” (Ellen, 1984,
p. 3), and also “the product o f live dialogue” (Duranti, 1997, p. 87, citing Tedlock,
1983), the data (recordings, transcripts, interviews, fieldnotes) reflect the choices,
viewpoints and attitudes of participants in the ethnographic enterprise (including the
researcher and the researched).
Here, I explain why and how my “observation was made’’’ (Kaplan, 1964, p. 133,
cited in Holy, 1984, p. 18), that is, why/how I approached such a field of investigation,
how I managed to collect my data, to limit my scope of analysis, and how the people I
researched played crucial roles in my decision-making. Before presenting this
procedural narrative, however, I locate the social situation I researched— counsehng
16
sessions for heterosexual couples^—^within the macro context it is a part of—the
Women 's Police Stations^ (WPS) in Brazil. I do this by giving an overview of the
origins^ characteristics and aims of both WPSs and counseling sessions.
3.1. A brief historical account of the Women’s Police Stations in Brazil
One o f the many challenges of Brazilian society has been to understand and
eliminate violence against women, especially marital violence, which has the highest
incidence among other types of violence against women. And if this is currently
recognized as an issue by society in general and by the state,^ this is due to the stressed
claims o f the Brazilian feminist movement, in the 1970s.^ Feminist scholars and
activists insisted on the government’s responsibility in abolishing crime in the home.
They emphasized the necessity o f creating an institutional apparatus^'’ to guarantee
abused women police, legal and psychological assistance. In standard police stations,
police officers rarely investigated cases of violence against women and, when they did,
they were hostile towards the female victims (Thomas, 1994), suggesting that women
themselves must have provoked the abuse.
®Sessões de orientação a casais, in Portuguese.
^Here I designate thé Delegacia de Froteção à Mulher, commonly known as Delegacia da Mulher, as
Women’s Police Station, after Thomas (1994).
* There are numerous (university) projects and (non)govemmental entities dealing with gender violence
nowadays in Brazil. At UFSC, for instance, every other year there is a meeting called Fazendo gênero na
UFSC, which brings together professionals and researchers from various areas.
®The attempt of battered women to denounce violence in the home is in no way recent. Da Silva’s (1980,
cited in Tzuminn, 1998) study of the processes of divorce in the 18th century, for instance, reveals that at
that time women were already searching for a recognition of marital violence as a social, rather than
individuaL problem.
Feminists had already had a failed experience with the SOS-Mulher,.tlas first (nongovernmental) entity
created to support women victims of violence. The failure is attributed to the clashed interests of feminists
and abused women; transforming gender relations, by eliminating patriarchy, versus regenerating the
husband. A remarkable study on the practice of the SOS is Gregori’s (1992). See also Izumino (1998).
17
The greatest obstacle feminists had to transpose in their enterprise^ ^ was to
destroy commonsense beliefs such as em briga de marido e mulher não se mete a colher
(one does not interfere in a couple’s affairs) or isso é problema de pobre, de gente sem
educação (this is a problem o f the poor, of uneducated people). It was necessary for
society as a whole to recognize the social and criminal status of the problem. As cases
o f homicide among “respectable” families, of high social class, popped up in the media,
public opinion intensified the pressure on the government (Teles, 1993). It was within
this climate of let's fin d a solution that the WPSs were founded. By late 1985, eight
WPSs were finally operating in the state of São Paulo. The one located in Florianópolis,
which is the one I investigate, was also established in 1985, the second one in Brazil.
WPSs were thus created in order to make violence against women both visible and
treatable, that is, subject to be denounced and repressed through specialized means
(Izumino, 1998). Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, such aims proved to be very hard
to accomplish. In addition to the lack of financial support, there was a lack o f adequate
training for police officers to deal with gender-specific crimes (Thomas, 1994). In order
to overcome this problem, some police stations hired social workers specialized in
dealing with gender violence'^ (Thomas, 1994). The WPS in Florianópolis was not an
exception. By the time I carried out this research,^"* the WPS had four social workers
’' Their slogan was Quem ama não mata (he wha loves her will not kill her).
The WPS is located on Mauro Ramos Street, in Florianópolis, in an old building which had been a
hospice in the past. Police officers and social workers sometimes commented on this past history,
referring to the ar pesado (heavy atmosphere) of the place.
Thomas (1994) points out that because of the lack of financial support, some WPSs, like the ones in
Belo Horizonte and Rio de Janeiro, do not provide especial service to deal with gender-related crimes
anymore.
February and March, 1998.
18
(two o f them still in training),*^ psychologists and lawyers. These professionals
compose the support team of the WPS I researched.
In the next section, I present background information about the social work and
the counseling sessions studied.
3.2. The context of investigation
Social work at the WPS in Florianópolis started in 1991. Even though the
relevance of the position of the social worker is acknowledged by the institution and by
its clients, it is not officially recognized. The most practical consequence is that the
social workers’ autonomy is constrained. The social workers offer a kind of emergency
service, since they do not have contact with their clients beyond the walls of the WPS .
The social workers’ purpose during the initial years was to give women an
orientation concerning their legal rights in the divorce process. Noticing that the same
women constantly returned as victims of violence, even when engaged in new marital
relationships, Marta^^ (at that time the only social worker at the WPS) said that she
realized that divorce functioned only as an emergency solution for conflict. In other
words, it did not solve the real causes o f the problems women faced at home.*^
Therefore, she decided to change her approach by promoting reflection upon the factors
that caused marital problems, Thus, Marta created a space in which both the women and
their partners could expose their problems and tentative solutions for their conflict could
In 1999, the two trainees were notthere anymore. Besides, one of the socral workers was transferred to
a regular police station, because of personal reasons, in the same year.
Notice that I use pseydonims to refer to the participants.
However, when the couple decides that there is no way to go on with their marital relationship, she
helps them in accomplishing the legal steps toward the divorce.
19
be drawn: the counseling sessions for couples/^ According to her, nowadays, the
objective of social work is twofold: first, it aims at eliminating violence; second, it
involves changing people’s conduct and gender stereotyped worldviews.
At first, I could not grasp why Marta made a distinction between the two
purposes, as I saw both as two sides of the same coin. During fieldwork, I noticed that,
contrary to my expectations^ questioning gender roles in society was not a rule at the
WPS. I realized then that the image of a WPS I had in my mind was very idealistic. I
did not find there the radical feminists I thought I would. If I could find some reflection
on gender issues, it was among the social workers. However, if on the one hand it is the
space where reflection upon gender roles does happen; on the other hand, it contributes
to emphasize the maintenance of the family by reminding people of their family rights
and duties. Below, I present a segment in which the social worker explains to the wife
the kind of service they provide for couples:
DS2
1 Lia:
2 SW :
pois é, mas que tipo de: ajuda vocês oferecem,=
=orientação, (.) pro casal né, a gente- como- (.) vocês vieram hoje. a gente vai
discutir 0 objeto problema de vocês, saber o que é que tá incomotdando, pra poder
buscar a solução junto, apontar, não dizer o que vocês devem fazer, mas m-clarear
pra vocês, o quê que tá incomodando,=
={{tnmm))=
3
SW':
=0 mais profundo, o objeto, PRINcipal do problema, porque 0 resto=
=[são conseqüências,]
[((trimm))]
(.)
4
SW:
né, (.) então a gente vai clarear e mostrar imia soluçâo,=
5
SW':
=como vi- viver sem violência (.) dá pra viver sem violência,=
6
SW':
={{trimm))=
=conversando,
At the counseling sessions, both the female and the male partner have the chance
to tell their side of the story concerning their marital conflict. Regardless of what
Social workers also orient and givg pxrfcg support to male-vrctimy of females. Besides; marital conflict
is not the only reason that leads (wo)men to the WPS. For the purposes of this research, however, I focus
on interchanges in which the participants are the wife (as the a priori victim), the husband (as the a priori
defendant) and the social worker (as the mediator).
20
actually takes place in the sessions, social workers stress their concern with their role,
that is, with their attempt to do their job in what they consider to be professional and
coherent ways. As they are aware of the fact that WPSs are seen by the general public as
institutions where women are assigned the role of the victim, social workers show
concern in asserting their neutrality; in demonstrating that they follow a methodology of
analysis which allows men to have vez e voz (their turn and their voice). This is what
makes counseling sessions unique in relation to (other) feminist ways of solving marital
violence: the social workers stress that conflict in the home is a constmctLon o f both
wife and husband. Thus, men are not depicted as the only ones responsible for the
family disorder.
Before entering the social workers’ room at the WPS in Florianópolis, the wife
and her husband must have gone through some act of violence that led to the charge
and, consequently, the session o f counseling. Thus, I refer to counseling sessions as
encounters o f a conflictual nature, because they come to exist as a result o f marital
conflict. To put it in simpler words, there would be no session if there were no previous
conflict to be complained about and accounted for.
Once it is recorded, a woman’s complaint becomes public concern through her
narrative of the violent scenes of which she claims to be the victim. In order to fill in a
form (a copy is shown in appendix B l), the police officer asks the wife for factual
information about her husband and herself (like age, address, profession, and race), as
well as details about their relationship (how long they have been a couple, the number
o f children) and about the violent act (a threat, or a physical or psychological
aggression) that provoked the complaint.
The police report contains a thirci-persoir narrative (which results from the woman’s and the officer’s
interchange, btrt is written by the latter) which contextuaHzes the charge.
21
The next procedure is to send the police report to the delegada, the WPS chief
police officer, who analyzes the case and decides about the necessary steps to be
followed by the victim. From then on, any police or legal action that the victim pursues
is based on the police report. At this point, if the woman insists on continuing with the
charge, and if her case is considered delicate, she will receive guidance from the chief
police officer personally. There are three other possible steps the victim’s police report
may lead her (Santos, 1997): (1) to police examination (in this case the woman is asked
to have a medical examination at the Legal Medical Institute); (2) to the small claims
court; (3) to the support team o f the WPS, which includes psychologists, lawyers and
social workers. If the woman’s case is sent to the support team, she may be assisted by a
social worker, on the second floor of the WPS. That is when the woman, her husband
and one or two social worker(s) will constnict the social encounters I am interested in.
One of the social workers told me that about seven years ago there was a selection of
the charges in order to decide between sending them to the psychologists or to the social
workers. Nowadays, cases are distributed among them randomly mainly because of
their great number, so as not to overload a specific division.
After receiving their set of cases, the social workers issue the writs (a copy is
shown in appendix B2) which will be delivered by police officers to the couples. In
order to expedite the process, sometimes the woman herself takes her husband’s writ
home. Must be stressed that many women withdraw the charges right after filing the
complaint, for fear o f their husbands’ reactions. Others withdraw the charge after the
writs are delivered, and do not show up for the counseling session.
This may happen
because the couple decided to solve their conflict by themselves. Still another reason
^“According to the social workers, womeir veiy freqnently cancel the sessron, saying that they will give
their partners another chance.
22
may be the preference to avoid any risk to their face by not participating in the ritual
proposed by the police. As Goffman (1967) puts it “the surest way for a person to
prevent threats to his face is to avoid contacts in which these threats are likely to occur”
(p. 15).
Below, I present a narrative of the paths both wife and husband follow before
performing their roles in the scene I focus on.
3.2.1. The encounters
The four encounters I deal with in this study are initial interviews,^ ^ that is, it is
the first time each couple participates in a counseling session at the WPS. The overall
and basic structure of the sessions may be represented as follows:
" calling the couple, who is waiting in another room
■introducing the people present in the room to the couple
■requesting permission to record the interview
■reading the police report made by the wife
■referring to the mediation procedure to be followed
" searching for the problem
■giving/receiving advice
■reaching agreement
■closing
Through this segmentation, we can identify four main speech activities participants
go through during these counseling interactions: discussing the mechanics o f the
interaction (mechanics talk), searching for the couple’s problem (problem talk),
giving/receiving advice (advice talk) and reaching agreement (agreement talk). By
speech activity I mean to designate the “set of social relationships enacted about a set of
schemata in relation to some communicative goal” (Gumperz, 1982, p. 166). N ote that
the four activities mentioned above are not necessarily carried out one after the other.
23
Besides, each one o f them may occur more than once in a session. However, notice that
participants do not orient to matters of advice or agreement before engaging in the
search for the problem, which is the activity in which they usually spend more time.
This does not exclude the possibility that the participants reengage in the search for the
problem after advice has been accomplished in some way.
My objective with this hasty presentation of major speech activities of the event is to
provide a contextualization for the reader’s sake and not an analysis proper. These
activities as well as the reasons to segment talk in this way will be explained in detail in
chapter 4.
Following is a layout of the room in which the sessions took place.
desks
W; wife
S -
typewriters
H: husband
M -
cabinets
-
-
clock on the wall
Figure 1- Layout o f the setting studied
The main difference between initial and non-initial sessions concerns their basic task. In initial sessions
participants’ main concern is defining the problem. In non-initial interviews problems are already defined.
24
It is around the desk in which the tape recorder is placed that the protagonists in
this scene perform their roles. Note that the organization of the sittings never varies. The
wife always sits closest to the window, next to her husband. Both of them are positioned
face to face (in spatial terms) across from the social worker.
In the next section, along with the presentation of the social workers and the
couples, I present a summary o f what the participants do in the counseling sessions I
selected for the present study.
3.2.2. The participants
The social workers
Marta is the most experienced social worker that participates in the sessions. She
is in her early forties, and has been working at the WPS for seven years. She entered the
police station as a notary public, but as she had both and undergraduate and a graduate
degree in social work, and there was a need for a social worker at the WPS, she took the
position and became the first social worker of the WPS in Florianópolis. Marta received
her undergraduate and master’s degrees from the Universidade Federal de Santa
Catarina (UFSC) and is currently working towards her law degree at the Universidade
do Sul de Santa Catarina.
Marta demonstrated interest in violence against women issues. During our talks,
she always commented on the long journey people still have to go through to free
society from patriarchy and its negative consequences. The achievement of gender
equality is a concern Marta showed to have not only as a social worker, but also as a
mother, a wife, and a person. As a social worker, her practice was very much
25
recognized by the other professionals at the WPS, as I could notice during the
participant observation period. It is not a coincidence that every time there is a delicate
case to deal with, police officers count on Marta, or Madre Tereza, as some of them
kindly call her, to do this.
During the sessions I observed, Marta shared her work with her two social
worker-intems. Even though I had the opportunity to attend sessions directed by both
interns, only one of them, Sueli, took part directly in this study. Marta showed me her
concern in contributing to the development of her trainees as good, critical and
responsible social workers. She was very proud of Sueli, 19, who concluded the
undergraduate course in social work at UFSC during the course of this research. Sueli
ftilfilled her internship requirement from 1997 through 1998. During the first year she
observed the sessions and kept a journal. In 1998, she began acting in the role of social
worker, under M arta’s supervision. Sueli and I established an academic dialogue,
exchanging books and references. Her final undergraduate paper was on the relationship
between economic factors and violence against women.
Another social worker I had contact with was Helia, 50, working for the WPS
since 1995. Even though I asked her permission to audiotape her sessions, she kindly
refused my request. She justified it saying that she is seen at the WPS as a tough person.
And she ratified this label telling me that her way of orienting people is quite different
from Marta’s, because she is tougher. I respected her position and did not insist. After
all,
... respect for our hosts’ sensitivity should always override our desire for “good”
data and the thrill of documenting something exemplary for our research goals
(Duranti, 1997, p. 102).
26
Even though Hélia did not allow me to record her sessions, she was interested in
understanding what I was doing there. She was the first person at the WPS who asked
me specific questions about my research. Although I did not observe her sessions, she
asked my opinion regarding their work, questioning me about the ways they should
change in order to be effective. The day when Hélia asked me this, I realized that the
link I had established with them as a researcher should be a two-way link. In other
words, my microanalysis of interaction could shed some light on their practice as social
workers.
The couples
Lia & Jonas. Marta as social worker: February. 19. 1998. 22 minutes
Lia and Jonas, both around 40, are the couple who participated in the first session
I observed. They had been married for 15 years and divorced for 2 months by the time
the complaint was filed. Lia’s charge concerned the fact that Jonas kept disturbing her
after they got divorced. At a certain point, he addressed her with dirty words; at another
he invaded her house and took things that belonged to her. In addition, the wife says that
he also kept bothering her daughter. The interesting thing about Lia and Jonas is that
they were living together again, and engaged in finding ways to understand and solve
their problems, which they believe should be treated through psychological help. During
the session, they agreed on the need to reflect about the way they defined family roles.
In Marta’s words “onde é que é o lugar do pai, da mãe” (what is the role of the father, of
the mother). The couple emphasized how obscure the cause of their problems was,
since, as Jonas says, “a gente não tem problema assim de bebida” (we don’t have
problems like drinking).
27
Jane & Rafael Marta as social worker. March. 12. 1998. 1 hour: 10 minutes
Jane and Rafael, both around 50, and married for 24 years, are the couple
participating in the most conflictual session I had the chance to observe. In the charge,
Jane accuses Rafael of slapping her face, of threatening to expel her from home,
alleging that she has a lover. Throughout the session, other problems are discussed, and
the main concern of the couple seems to be related to financial issues: they do not agree
on the way the family should use the money they earn. In the end, participants do not
achieve an agreement and the session finishes in a very embarrassing way.
Soraia & Paulo. Sueli as social worker most of the time. March. 13. 1998. 40
minutes
The third couple whose session I observed, Soraia and Paulo, are in their late 50’s.
Soraia pressed the charge because Paulo got drunk and tried to hang her. During the
session, the fact that he stays until late at night drinking in bars, and supposedly has a
lover, is highlighted. The hanging event is treated as one among a series o f narratives
about Paulo’s misconduct. Soraia also complains about his drinking habits.
Laura & Marco, Sueli as social worker. March. 30. 1998. 15 minutes
Laura and Marco, in their late 60’s, are both retired. They have been married for
37 years. Laura came to the WPS to complain about M arco’s misbehavior. According to
her, he always disturbs her, their children and neighbors, and lately things have been
getting worse, especially when he drinks. She adds that on the day she made the charge,
he aggressed her verbally.
28
As a participant-observer, I remained in silence during all the conversations, in the
“blind spot” (Duranti, 1997, p. 101), trying to be the least intrusive I could. However, I
am aware that my presence made a difference sometimes. For instance, during Jane and
Rafael’s session, while she was addressing the social worker, he kept looking at me,
expressing opposition to his wife’s sayings through nonverbal behavior. Besides, I was
more intrusive in all sessions when I came to the desk to reverse the tape.
As I had already carried out research at the WPS (I explain this in the next section,
2.2), I was not a complete stranger there. In addition, the fact that I was back, going on
with my interest in the WPS’ practices, was positively viewed. However, I felt that it
was quite difficult for them to grasp what a student of applied linguistics was doing
there. Although I did explain I was not interested in analyzing the use of (non)standard
Portuguese, I noticed some o f the WPS staff oriented to this understanding. It was a
challenge to make them overcome common sense views of the scope of a course like
Letras. In the end, I am sure that the people who participated directly in my work
understood my concern with their interactional doings.
Since the first day at the WPS, I was treated with respect. As I stayed at M arta’s
office with her and her trainees, we constantly had the opportunity to discuss issues
related to gender and violence, among others. The fact that we shared some interests and
views contributed to bring us together. I even had the opportunity to participate in some
of their activities, for example, filing writs, calling people who were waiting, for the
sessions, answering the phone. And there was also the chat during coffee-break
everyday. Regarding my contact with the couples, except for some minutes talking to
Jane, it was restricted to the sessions. And this is one of the limitations of my study. I
29
could have profited from interviewing them, but I decided not to be more intrusive than
I had already been.
In the following section, I explain how I negotiated entry in the field, how I
collected the data and how I initiated the process of limiting the scope of analysis.
3.3. Entering the field
Contrary to my expectations, getting permission to carry out my research at the
WPS was quite easy. I believe this was due to two factors. First, I was not the first
student to ask for permission to collect research data there. On the contrary, it is very
common to find other university students researching at the WPS files. Second, I myself
had already carried out research there, as an undergraduate student, in 1996. Thus, I had
already met some of the police officers and also the WPS chief police officer, and this
surely helped my negotiation of entry. I expected the negotiation of entry to be difficult
exactly because, differently from my first entry there, my intention was not to have
access to the WPS files, but to record people talking about their lives and police
members doing their job.
During my previous research, I had the opportunity to talk to Marta, who told me
that, if I wanted to, I could attend her sessions with people having problems o f violence
in the home. However, as interaction was not of my interest at that time, I did not attend
the sessions. My undergraduate study was related to the investigation of the way women
and men are represented in a written genre that circulates within the WPS, which is the
police report. As I became interested in the study of talk, I found out that M arta’s
sessions would be valuable data for analysis^ for I would be able to investigate what
these people were doing together when “receiving/giving orientation”. The first thing I
30
did, then, was to get in contact with Olga, the WPS detective. She was the person I had
most contact with during my first entry there. So, she introduced me to Marta again.
As Marta accepted my research proposal,^^ we agreed that I would inform the
WPS chief police officer about my work. And I did that. I talked briefly to the officer
about my purposes and gave her a document in which I was identified as a master’s
student at UFSC. And I was welcomed by her, as well as by the other professionals at
the police station.
3.3.1. Collecting the data
The first time I went to the WPS to observe sessions, I had a very vague idea of
what happened during counseling interaction. I was even in doubt if I was going to work
with sessions for individual clients, usually women, or for couples, both wife and
husband face to face. Two issues were crucial in helping me define the kind of session I
would focus on. First, when talking about the couple’s sessions, social workers
emphasized that men would have their vez e voz (turn and voice), and that this could
reveal the real causes of marital conflict. They told me that there were sessions in which
wife and husband exchanged roles: he became the victim. I got interested in knowing
how this happened and how the social workers dealt with the fact that, as M arta puts it,
cada um mostra a sua parte hoazinha (each one makes a good showing of him/herself)
during the interaction. Second, I had a personal and academic interest in the debate on
gender relations. It was exactly this interest that brought me to the WPS. After writing a
paper on the way a women’s magazine influenced the construction of women’s identity
(Domelles, 1997), I was to see how gender was dealt with by real people, men and
^ The fact that it was Marta herself who suggested the reamfargs as-well as the fact that she was still in
agreement with this were i
31
women, for whom it was an immediate life concern. Besides, previous research on
gender and violence (Gregori, 1992) points to the lack of men’s voice in discussions on
violent marital relations. In order to avoid “partial constructions” (Gregori, 1992, p.
200) of violent scenes, Gregori advocates the inclusion of the male side of the story.
During the afternoons of February and March, 1998, I had the opportunity to
observe the routines o f the WPS very closely. Such routines included police ofBcers on
duty, people complaining, people seeking orientation, people begging for a job and
food, hopeless, socially violated people, waiting in the corridors. Sometimes, I felt I was
in an emergency room at a hospital. At other times, things were quite peacefiil and even
funny, for example^ when celebrating International Women’s Day. There was fhiit salad
for everybody!
It was within such an atmosphere that I carried out fieldwork, which included
taking notes, interviewing people (in)formally, recording conversations and negotiating
permission to observe/record sessions each time a new participant came to the scene. I
was thus inserted into the “continuous process of negotiation” which qualitative
research requires (Erickson, 1992, p. 211).
The fieldnotes include observations about the interactants’ physical behavior,
relevant background information about the participants, people’s opinions regarding
(marital) violence and the role of the WPS (with an emphasis on understanding the role
of the social work). In addition to questioning the participants informally, I formally
interviewed the social workers who participated in the research. The interviews, which
happened in August, 1998, were basically about the origin, organization and aims of
counseling sessions. Although I had an agenda (see appendix B3), I did try not to
32
restrict the interview to answering the pre-established questions. Besides, I interviewed
them separately.
As for the recordings of sessions, I recorded a total of eight, from which I chose
four to compose the corpus of the present study. I selected those sessions which were
initial sessions for couples, that is, it was the first time the couple came for an interview
with the social worker. Regarding the four sessions I left out, two were not initial
interviews, and the other two were not related to marital conflict. Although a number of
four sessions were usually scheduled for each afternoon, 23 there were days in which
none of the people scheduled showed up. Furthermore, just some of the sessions were
for couples.^^ Because of this, I ended up attending more sessions than the ones I
recorded.
For the recordings, I used a portable audio-recorder, which I placed on the desk
around which participants sat. The quality of the recording is good, even though the
room was really noisy^ because o f the busy traffic outside. Before each session, M arta
introduced me to the couple by telling them I was a university student interested in
investigating how people communicated with each other. After this, I asked the couple
permission to record their interaction. I assured them that the material was going to be
used only for academic purposes, that they would not be identified in the research, and
that they had the right to ask me to erase the tape if they so wished by the end o f the
session. Fortunately, all the couples I approached agreed with the recordings and none
changed their minds.
As I did not record the participants authorizing me to audio-
Counseling sessions took place only in the afternoon.
The police station where I carried out research includes two sectors: proteção à mulher and proteção ao
menor e ao adolescente. This way, I also observed sessions in which participants were concerned with
violence against children and adolescents.
The only no I received was in one of the first sessions 1 observed, when 1 was not interested in
recording couples y et but women.
33
record, I drafted a form (see appendix B4) in which social workers gave me this consent
and testified to the couples’ permissions. All these procedures reflect my concern with
confidentiality, that is, “the fiandamental ethical requirement of the researcher to prevent
harm coming to those studied through the processes by which they are studied”
(Erickson, 1992, p. 212).
When negotiating entry with the social workers, I had already stressed the
guarantee of confidentiality and the use of the data for matters of research only. During
the first recordings, however^ M arta’s concern with preserving the couples’ identity was
marked by the use o f pseudonyms, seu João e dona Maria, to refer to them and by the
omission o f information such as addresses in her talk. As time went by, Marta stopped
doing this. Regarding the obtrusiveness of the tape recorder, I can say that for the
couples, and later on for the social workers as well, it was as if the machine was not
there. This may be due to the fact that for the participants of counseling sessions,
“involvement in the emotional dynamics of the exchanges reduces the amount o f
attention that can be given to the monitoring of their speech” (Labov & Fanshel, 1977,
p. 354).
The problems I had with the recordings were of a mechanical sort. First o f all, I
did not record sessions from their very beginning, exactly because I was concerned with
assuring participants’ permission to record. Thus, the recordings always begin after the
consent; greetings and discussions on authorization to record are not on tape. Secondly,
as I was using only one tape recorder, I lost some parts of the conversations when I
reversed the tape.
34
3.4. Procedures for data adjustments and analysis
From data collection to the segmentation of the interactional event, I had a hard
time making choices. The first issue I had to decide upon concerned the kind o f
counseling session I was going to focus on (for women alone or for couples?). As I
explained in the previous section, I opted for initial counseling sessions fo r heterosexual
couples. Aft;er that, I had to decide if I was going to work only with one sample o f the
sessions or with more than one. I chose to work with the four initial sessions I had
recorded because I found that a single session would not be enough for me to see what
was typical and atypical in them.
For an initial handling of the data, I worked on one of the interactional exchanges.
I chose Jane and Rafael’s session because it was the most conflictual one and the most
difficult for participants to maintain face, I supposed. Here I encountered the hardest
task I had to accomplish; segmenting talk. At this point of my study, I had a strong
tendency to see each sample of interaction as a whole. In other words, I was not able to
decompose sessions. I always had the sensation that I was losing something if I
segmented them. I believe this was due to the fact that during my participant
observation, I had already established that the focus of my analysis would be face-work,
because the participants demonstrated an effort to project positive impressions o f their
selves. However, in looking at my data, and trying to select segments in which facework was evident, I found this was too broad a criterion for segmentation. The
considerations which came out of this initial handling happened to be of a very etic
kind, as I did misunderstand what was going on.
I finally decided to follow Erickson and Shultz’s (1981) and Erickson’s (1992)
methodology for data analysis. Thus, I listened to all the tapes again, without stopping
35
at any moment, but making notes in which I pointed out the main topics and details that
called my attention. In the next session o f hearings, I tried to figure out the main parts o f
the event and the junctures that separated them. At this point, the analysis of the
participant frameworks (Goodwin, 1990) helped me to identify the four main speech
activities participants carry out; mechanics talk, problem talk, advice talk and agreement
talk. From the four activities identified^ problem talk seemed to be the most relevant one
for participants’ accomplishments within the encounter. I then transcribed some samples
o f this activity from the four tapes and tried to identify its main features. I notice then
that problem talk typically unfolds into two participant frameworks—the mediated and
the direct disputes—which overlap with a third one, which I name cross-examination
and wich signals a hidden speech activity. I also found out that the main actions o f the
participants in these frameworks are complaints. I decided then to investigate how facework was carried out in mediated dispute/cross examination. Throughout these stages, I
kept in mind the information I had from fieldwork as a way to ground my analysis.
In the present chapter, I provided a general description of the context of
investigation, a narrative o f the way fieldwork was carried out and how I processed the
data. In the next chapter, I proceed to the examination of the major constituents o f the
event here roughly described (in section 3,2.1). Underlying this description is an
intention to investigate the main accomplishments of the participants as well as to
segment talk for the interactional analysis to be carried out in chapter 5.
CHAPTER 4
CO-CONSTRUCTING (ACTS AND ROLES ON) THE STAGE: COUNSELE^iG
INTERACTION AND THE HIDDEN AGENDA
“In all situations^ even the most institutionalized
and ritualized, people are agents in the production
o f their own and others ’ social selves
(Ochs, 1993, p. 296)
My purpose in this chapter is to describe the overall organization of counseling
interaction as well as the main accomphshments of participants in the event. As briefly
mentioned in chapter 3 (p. 22),^^ I have identified four major speech activities
(Gumperz, 1982) participants carry out: mechanics talk, problem talk, advice and
agreement talk. As a theoretical tool, I applied Goodwin’s (1990) notion of participant
frameworks. The chapter thus begins with the conceptualization of theoretical terms
which are central to the subsequent description. After this, I describe each of the four
activities o f the event. The analysis of frameworks reveals an underneath activity, which
rarely comes to the surface of talk—cross-examination within problem talk. In the end
o f the chapter, I include another section in which I briefly discuss a discrepant case, that
is, a session in which what happens is quite atypical. This counter-example contributes
to show how, even though participants’ actions are institutionally shaped, their actual
achievements are co-constructed in situ.
There I define speech activ^y fbliowing Gmnperz.
37
4.1. Counseling interaction and its major constituents
By examining the standard shape of the event, I identified four main speech
activities participants carry out, as they pursue institutional tasks; mechanics talk,
problem talk, advice talk and agreement talk. Participant fi-ameworks as defined by
Goodwin (1990) proved to be an efficient analytic descriptor for characterizing the
different activities. Her conceptualization of the term encapsulates two basic processes;
(1) the way activities align participants toward each other (for instance, being a speaker
or a hearer as a turn is constructed); and (2) the way ongoing talk characterizes or
depicts relevant parties (animating them as figures within talk, for example). Goodwin
stresses that, even though these two processes are conceptually distinct, in practice, they
are frequently intertwined. She exemplifies this distinction with the “he-said-she-said”
framework typical of confrontations among Maple Street girls.^^ According to her
analysis of such confrontations, the speaker reports that she knew from a third party that
the addressee was talking about her behind her back. The way participants are described
within the report contributes to positioning them as accuser and defendant in the
activity of the moment. In addition, it also aligns those who are present, but are not
protagonists of the accusation, who become then the audience to the confrontation.
Goodwin’s study is remarkable in demonstrating the key role of participant framework
for the social organization of face-to-face interaction.
The reason for choosing Goodwin’s notion of participant frameworks, instead of
related concepts such as Erickson and Shultz’s (1981) participation structures or
Goffman’s ( \ 9Sl ) participation frameworks is due to the type of data I work with in this
thesis. In counseling sessions (CSs), participants enact roles and establish relationships
“in talk directed from one speaker to another” and “by one speaker about another”
^ Goodwin calls Maple Street a residential streetin a black working--das5 neigjiborhood in Southwest
Philadelphia.
38
(O’Connor & Michaels, 1996, p. 68; emphasis in the original). Goodwin’s concept is
the only one to acknowledge the second process.
I now proceed to the description of the speech activities identified. As previously
mentioned, the description will make salient that problem talk is the activity in which
participants accomplish tasks that seem to be central to the event. Because o f this, I
explain it in a more detailed way than I do the other activities.
4.1.1. Mechanics talk and the ritual order
It is March 30th, 1998. The big clock next to the window on one of the walls of
the social worker’s room displays 2 p. m. It is time for the first couple scheduled that
day to come in. As the social worker in charge is Sueli (SW^), the trainee, she sits at
Marta’s desk, whereas Marta positions herself in the back of the room, next to me. At
this point, someone knocks at the door: a woman introducing herself as one o f the
daughters o f Laura and Marco, the first couple to be seen that afternoon. She enters the
room and asks the social workers to dar uma prensa (be tough) on her father, because
he has been behaving in reprehensible ways. After no more than two minutes, the
daughter leaves and SW^ calls Laura and Marco. As they sit down around the desk, we
greet each other and I ask for permission to record. After this, the session begins:
D S 12
1 SW^:
2 Marco:
3 SW‘:
4 SW^:
5 Marco:
6 SW^:
eu YOU ler a intimaçã-[a;::]=
[tá, tá]
=reclamação=
=0 boletim de ocorrência=
=tá=
=que: a dona::, Laura (.) registrou contra o senhor, tá, (.) eu pediria que cada um
falasse na sua vez, primeiro quando eu acabar de ler eu vou passar a palavra pra
dona Laura né, depois o senhor, pra gente conseguir conversar com calma, (.) tá,
39
This is a typical way CSs start: with the establishment of the special tum-taking
allocation rules characteristic o f the event.'^ These rules, as exposed above by the social
worker, are grounded in mediation procedures. Basically, these procedures aim at
assuring husband and wife the right to pre-allocate turns to tell his/her side o f the
conflictual stories they are enacting at home. The social worker is the one responsible
for guaranteeing disputants the right to speak. It is thus the moments in which
participants refer to the rules o f the game, which I call mechanics talk.
Mechanics talk is typically an opening activity. This does not mean, however, that
participants never orient to this activity in other moments of the event. The following
segment shows SW^ calling Marco’s attention after he challenges the mediation system,
interfering abruptly with Laura’s pre-allocated turn:
D S 12
7 SW^:
— >
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Laura:
Marco:
Laura:
Marco:
SW^:
Marco:
SW^:
Marco;
0 quê que tá acontecendo, dona Laura,
((pause))
ah ele tebe, que ele é mal- muito mal criado, tudo quan[to] é nome ele diz (.) ele=
[não,]
=me ofende a mim [(
)]
[tnão, não] ( [
)]
[não. (.) o se]nhor,=
= eu seieu sei=
=0 senhor espera ela, (.) [falar primeijro [tá,]
[(,
)]
[( )]
As Marco insists on trying to gain the floor, mechanics talk is reopened again, in
line 18:
DS 12
16 Laura:
ele chega ele vai pra estra:da (.) ele vai pra estrada ele chama a minha filha de
sapatão. meu filho de ladrão (isso é alto) da vizinha.
(.)
— >
17 Marco:
(a: mas Tele falo-) (.) não, >psxiu<
18 SW^;
19 Marco;
=NAO. primeiro [o senhor esPEra ela fa]LAR.=
[não tô falando não,]
(.)
^ See Sacks, Sche^oflf and Jefferson (1974) for
systems.
40
The continuation of the passage shows that Marco persists in interrupting (Hnes
19, 20, 27 and 29, below), This time, however, the other participants react to his
interruptions, by using what I call an ignoring strategy, that is, they continue in
mediated talk, as if he were not present. This is indicated by Laura’s use of third person
singular to refer to him:
DS
L9
20
— ^ 21
^ 22
12
Marco:
Marco:
Laura:
Laura:
[não to falando não,]
=ladrão não tô falando tisso aí. (.) [eu não fatiei] isso.=
[ele:::]
=e ele é mal criTado. >tudo quanto é palavrão ele diz< (dentro) dessa boca ai
quando ele tá bêbado.
(.)
23 SW^:
24 Laura:
25 SW";
- > 26
27
28
29
Laura;
Marco:
Laura:
Marco:
=e os seus filhos são catsados (.) não,=
=são.=
=são,
((pause))
ele agora (.) brigou (.) com o vizinho (.) do lado,=
=bri[gou não, que ele]=
[se desentendeu]
=(
) [(
)]
But Marco does not give up interrupting, which causes S W \ who is observing the
session, to interfere in order to stress the rules once again;
DS
27
28
29
— > 30
31
32
12
Marco:
Laura:
Marco:
SW’:
SW":
Marco:
=bri[gou não, que ele]=
[se desentendeu]
= ( ) [ ( ) ]
[O SEU, SEU,] como é seu nome, seu [MARCO, o seiihor] dá licença,=
[SEU Marco]
=tMarco.
(.)
- > 3 3 SW*
34
■ >• 3 5
36
- > 37
Marco:
SW':
Marco:
SW*:
38 SW":
a 0 senhor-faz 0 seguinte,, eu sei que 0 senhor quer fatLAR, a-se 0 senhor quer
falar antes DEla, até a gente ttroca.=
=tácer[to.]
>[ma]s aí depois o senhor não vai poder falar ma[ís< o bom.] até o mais=
[tá, tá (.) tá certo.]
=inteligente seria (.) que 0 senhor deixasse ela falar TUDO (.) ai 0 senhor guarda
TUDO na cabeça o que o senhor acha que tá EtRRADO. que não é assim.
[depois 0 senhor FALA.]
[depois 0 senhor fala.]
Finally, both SW^ and SW^ lead on a discussion on the rules, giving details on
how Marco should proceed;
41
D S 12
38 SW^:
- > 3 9 SW ':
40 Marco;
[depois o senhor fala.]
=porque se o senhor falar tANTES, ninguém vai lhe ouvir DEtPOIS.=
=tábom.
(.)
- > 41
42
43
44
45
- > 46
47
48
SW>
SW"
SW>
Marco;
SW‘;
SW";
Marco;
SW‘;
=tá? a escolha é sua.=
=não inte[t rrompa]
>[por isso] que a gente [tá dan]do=
[(°tábom°)]
=[chan]ce< dela falar antes (.) e o senhor, >daí tfala depois dela é metlhor.<=
[tá,]
=(°sei (.) [sei°)]
[ago]ra, se o senhor interromper. (.) nós vamos trocar.
((pause))
49 SW^;
pode falar=
50 Laura; =e ele fica muito agressivo quando ele bebe. e male-, e sem bebida ele é malcriado...
The last five segments are examples of moments in which participants highlight
their asymmetrical and institutional differences. Whereas the social workers are the ones
demonstrably in control o f the ceremonial rules of interaction, that is, the ones who
know the rules and establish the way interaction should proceed, Marco does not
challenge their authority, and Laura waits for the social worker’s signal to continue
complaining.
Social workers are generally the primary speakers^*’ in mechanics talk, whereas
the husband and/or the wife are the recipients. However, in one of the CSs I studied, in
Jane and Rafael’s, I found passages in which either the husband or the wife appropriates
the social worker’s stance by claiming for his/her right to talk. The following segment
presents Jane orienting to mechanics talk in a way to reallocate her turn, which was
disrupted by Rafael;
DS4
— > 26 Rafael;
27
28
29
30
Jane;
Rafael;
Rafael;
Jane;
[>a senhoral.pegue sua mão no telefone, liga pra delegacia de
Barreiros, que a família dela é toda assim, tia.< TEM UMA LISTA, TODOS (.) tem
QUAtro já separados=
=não te confunde [com os] outros=
[pára]
=deixa eu falar [deixa eu falar]
[não te confim]de
(.)
“ The primary speaker is the one that ha? the main turn, whereas the secondary sfKakerhas^ the marginal
turn. By the same token, the primary recipient is the one that is addressed by the main turn, whereas the
secondary recipient is not.
42
- ^ 3 1 Jane:
32 SW‘;
>eu a i-eu ainda não terminei<=
=enlão então deixa só ela terminar o se[nhorl vai falar=
Later on in the same interaction, it is Jane who interrupts Rafael’s pre-allocated
turn:
— >
D S5
LI Jane;
12 Rafael:
13
14
15
16
17
Rafael;
Jane;
SW‘;
Rafael;
SW :
po-po[sso falar,]
[não, pára.]
(•)
[deixa,] deixa eu [falar,]=
[t°não,°]
[(°então fala°)]=
=(°é:;°)=
=deixa eu falar,=
=fala,seu::=
Despite the different ways disputants interrupt the other’s turn (Jane asks for
permission to talk, whereas Rafael does not), in both segments, the social worker
acknowledges the propriety o f the disputants’ claims and reassures the ongoing speaker
status.
As I have tried to demonstrate^ mechanics talk functions to maintain as well as to
re-establish the ritual order o f CSs. It serves to guarantee the wife and the husband the
necessary space to expose their points as regards the marital conflict. This way, it settles
a specific framework of problem talk—the mediated dispute structure. The following
graphs represent the participant frameworks typical of mechanics talk. Notice that the
social worker is the one who is usually positioned as a primary speaker, even though
exceptions do occur.
H
SW
SW
/ \
/ \
------
W
The opening framework
W o r H ------
WorH
The ritual reestablishing framework
SW: social worker; H: husband; W: wife
-----------
primary speakers and recipients
_______
secondary speakers and recipients
Figure 2 - Participant framework in mechanics talk
43
4.1.2. Problem talk^^: in search for the problem and the victim
During problem talk, the participants of the interactions studied here are likely to
organize themselves in a way so as to diagnose the couple’s problem of conduct and
establish its motives. The discussion to be carried out in this section aims at
understanding the relationship between participant frameworks and the diagnostic
process, that is, the relation between the structure of the interaction and the definition o f
the culprit and victim o f the marital crises. As the description will demonstrate, due to
the roles they create and the relationships they establish while doing problem talk, the
participants o f the CSs analyzed usually end up trying to find out who the victim is.
Thus, I argue that the identification of the (reasons for the) problem and the victim (and
thus the culprit) are, most of the time, one of the goals in counseling interactions.
Let us turn back to the segment from the beginning of the event that I have
presented above. We are again at that moment in which the social worker asserts the
normative procedures to be followed (discussed in section 4.1.1.). Our focus now is on
what takes place after mechanics talk;
DS
1
2
- 3
4
5
6
12'
SW^:
Marco:
SW‘:
SW^:
Marco:
SW^:
—^
eu YOU ler a intimaçã-[a:::]=
[tá, tá]
=reclamação=
=0 boletim de ocorrência=
=tá=
=que: a dona::, Laura (.) registrou contra o senhor, tá, (.) eu pediria que cada um
falasse na sua y c z , primeiro quando eu acabar de ler eu vou passar a palaYra pra
dona Laura né, depois o senhor, pra gente conseguir conversar com calma, (.) tá,
"— > {{she begins reading)) compareceu nesta delegacia de polícia, a vítima, nos
comunicando que é casada com o indiciado há 37 anos, (.) com quem possui 4
filhos, (.) que o mesmo sempre incomodou a YÍtima, (.) os filhos, e os vizinlios, (.)
que ultimamente está ficando pior, principalmente, quando ingere bebidas
alcoólicas, (.) que na data desta ocorrência o mesmo perturbou (.) e agrediu
moralmente a todos (.) é o relato.
Jefferson (1984) uses a similar label—troubles telling—to refer to sequences of talk in which one
participant introduces some trouble which will not necessarily be taken by the others as a topic to be dealt
with. Jefferson and Lee’s (1992) work on troubles telling focuses on the display of advice during ordinary
conversation and a service encounter. Also, Buttny (1993), in his study of therapy sessions for couples,
uses the term problem talk as a synonym for the telling o f problems.
44
After the establishment of the ritual rules, the social worker reads the police
report, a document which contains the charge previously made by the wife (about the
police report, see section 3.2.). The reading of the police report makes the institutionally
given positions o f the parties present explicit: the vwfe is the complainant/accuser and
victim; the husband is the accused and defendant; the social worker is the representative
o f the police institution. Therefore, the reading marks a change in footing, since it
“implies a change in the alignment” (Goffman, 1981, p. 128) participants take up for
themselves. Applying Goflfrnan’s notions of animator and principal, we can make some
considerations regarding this subtle change in alignment. Animator and principal (and
also author)^^ are notions that help us to understand what Goffman calls “the production
format” (p. 145) of an utterance. He conceptualizes animator as the “talking
machine...engaged in acoustic activity” (p. 144), that is, “an individual active in the role
o f utterance production” (p. 144). As for the principal^ he refers to it as “someone whose
position is established by the words that are spoken, someone whose beliefs have been
told, someone who is committed to what the words say” (p. 144). When the social
worker talks about the normative procedures of the encounter, she is the animator and
principal o f the utterances she produces. As for the other participants, they are primary
recipients o f the social worker’s utterances. Later on, when reading, SW^ takes up the
role o f the animator of words she “had no hand in formulating” (Goffman, 1981, p.
145). The principal in this case is the wife, since it is her opinions, sentiments and
beliefs that are being invoked from past to ongoing activity. The shift in footing points
to a new configuration in the participant framework, which marks the passage from
mechanics to problem talk. Such transition is strengthened by the social worker’s usual
question:
^^The author is '‘someortg whq has selected thg sentmieiits that are being expressed and tfag words in
which they are encoded” (Goffman, 1981, p. 144).
45
D S 12
6
SW":
é o relato.
7
SW";
0 quê que tá acontecendo, dona Laura,
((pause))
->■
& Laura;
9 Marco;
10 Laura;
((pause))
ah ele tebe, que ele é mal- muito mal criado, tudo quan[tol é nome ele diz (.) ele=
[não,]
=me ofende a mim [(
)]
By asking o quê que tá acontecendo (what’s going on), the social worker elicits
more information about the scenes of marital conflict, and, therefore, orients talk
towards the overtly expression of problems, which had already been introduced by the
written complaint. After the reading of the police report, both the wife and the husband
have the right to have at least one pre-allocated turn to make their complaints. During
the first time she has the turn, the wife generally confirms the written complaint by
enumerating problems whose causes she attributes to the husband’s conduct. Only afl:er
she finishes telling the mediator all she wants to tell (in turns varying fi-om 5 to 20
minutes), does the husband gain the floor to tell his version of the story. The husband’s
turn may both be designed as a counter-complaint (which implies a denial o f guilt) or as
an excuse (thus acceptance of guilt). If, after the wife’s and the husband’s first pre­
allocated turn, the social worker still has not achieved a diagnosis nor defined the
victim, disputants are likely to 'pre-allocate turns again. Problem talk will only be over
when the social worker signals that she has find out the victim, and, thus, orient talk to
advice talk.
During one’s turn, interferences of the other party are only allowed when they do
not disrupt the ongoing speaker’s flow of action. In other words, the other party to the
dispute, who is then the secondary recipient, is only authorized to participate as a
secondary speaker, without taking the current speaker’s turn away. The previous
discussion on mechanics talk (section 4.1.1.) showed what happens when one disputant
tries to gain the floor during another speaker’s pre-allocated turn. During these turns.
46
participants organize themselves as mediated disputants, a type o f organization typical
o f the mediated dispute— a participant framework of problem talk. Below, I discuss the
features of the mediated dispute and of the direct dispute—another participant
framework o f problem talk.
The mediated dispute: It’s his/her fault!
Let us begin the discussion on mediated dispute—^the most usual participant
framework o f problem talk-—by examining its occurrance. In the scene that precedes the
following excerpt, Laura’s pre-allocated turn had been disrupted by Marco. She is now
reengaging in complaining about his behavior:
D S 12
49 SW":
— > 50 Laura:
51 SW":
52 Laura:
podefalar=
=e ele fica muito a^-essiyo quando ele bebe. e male-, e sem bebida ele é malcriado
também (.) sabe,=
=arram=
=ele tem uma boca muito tsuia. (.) e tudo quanto é palavrão ele diz. (.) el- não pode
ir uma, luna ami- a minha irmã vai lá (.) foi lá Natal (.) dar um parabéns pra mim dar
um abraço de:, de Natal, as mi- as minhas sobrinhas, (.) ele tbebe ele bota eles a
correr. (.) meu filho de Blumenau chegou, a minha nora chegou a sair (.) chotrando.
Laura is talking to a person (the mediator) about a third party who is present (her
husband), but not allowed to take a turn at talk. The husband is portrayed in her talk as a
person who is aggressive, especially, but not exclusively, when he drinks. Laura
accounts for her accusation by telling about a specific event in which Marco treated
their family in a bad way. The scene she mentions happens during Christmas, when
Laura’s sister and nieces came to visit her. She tells the mediator that, on that occasion,
Marco drank and ended up disrupting the family meeting. Marco is thus positioned as a
defendant in the ongoing activity as well as a potential candidate for the culprit-role,
which will be a role he will indeed perform in the end of the session. This suggests how
“methods of portraying participants...also provide structures for aligning them” within
the immediate talk (Goodwin, 1990, p. 10).
47
Even though the session begins with the reading o f a document in which the
husband figures as the reprehensible character to the detriment of the victimized
position o f the wife, during the ongoing talk she may also play the role of the defendant.
This is an example of the fluidity o f identity in interaction (Aronsson, 1998; Erickson &
Shultz, 1982). The initial cartography of the social space (Aronsson, 1998) o f CSs, that
is, the pre-determined social organization o f the event, is in a way challenged, because
the wife is not always necessarily positioned as the complainant, nor the husband as the
defendant. To exemplify this, I present below a passage from the beginning o f Rafael’s
first pre-allocated turn:
DS4
52 Rafael:
eu não tenho tempo de cuidar de casa
53 Rafael:
sabe o quê que ela faz?
54 Rafael:
ela não limpa tum banheiro (.) ela não lava tim ia roupa dos filhos (.) ela não faz
tum café pros filhos (.) ela não faz tum a janta pra mim.
(.)
(.)
— ^
After listening to Jane’s complaints about his behavior, Rafael takes his chance to
counter-complain. He depicts Jane as a housewife who does not take care o f the house
and of her family the way he thinks she should. Jane becomes then the accused
character in the activity of the moment.
As regard the status of the mediator^ she is the one to whom complaints are
addressed; the one who specifies who is to talk to whom; the one who is thus free to self
select, and the one who directs talk towards the institutional task agenda (Drew &
Heritage, 1992). The following segment shows that as she listens to Laura’s account,
SW^ focuses her attention on the subject of drinking, which suggests that she is
orienting to the institutional mandate— diagnosing the problem and establishing the
victim.
48
DS 12
52
Laura;
53 Laura:
54 (SW^):
55 Laura:
56 SW^:
...ele tbebe ele bota eles a correr. (.) meu filho de Blumenau chegou, a minha nora
chegou a sair (.) chotrando.
((pause))
por causa dele, que ele entrou bêbado, ele agora a gente mora (parede e meia) com o
vizinho né [( ]
)=
[ahé]
=minha prima (.) eles se desentenderam ele e o homem né, (.) e agora por causa
disso ele bebe ele cham- só chama o homem de vagabundo, (.) fica falando do
homem na vizinhanca.=
=e faz temgo (.) faz::: bastante tempo, que ele bebe?
In the arrowed turn, the mediator acknowledges receipt, but does not evaluate
Laura’s accounts.
Differently from what would generally happen in ordinary
conversation, complaints are not assessed .In stead , they are used by the mediator as a
source o f information that may help diagnose the problem. In the segment under
discussion, the mediator demonstrates interest in eliciting details about the husband’s
drinking habit— an interest that might have been influenced by Laura’s emphasis on the
issue, as she relates the husband’s aggression to it. As the continuation of the segment
above shows, the social worker insists on eliciting information about drinking:
DS 12
— >• 56 SW^:
=e faz temtx) (.) faz::: bastante tempo, que ele bebe?
(.)
- > 57 SW^:
58- Laura:
não,=
= ta ií toda vida.
(-)
59 SW^:
60 Laura;
sempre bebeu/[DESDE QUE A SENHORA (.).casou,]
[todo o lugar (.) que a gente moraj ãrram. todo hagar que a gente
mora a gente sai corrido (.) porque ele dá em brigar com a vizinhança,=
Besides the elicitation technique, mediators also use formulations as a resource to
orient actions towards the diagnosis of the problem. Formulations consist o f “utterances
in which a speaker is summarizing the gist of prior talk by the recipient” (Garcez, 1996,
p. 126). In problem talk, formulations seem to function as a way to check information
which grounds subsequent eliciting practices. The next data excerpt shows SW^
riff ordinary conversation.
49
summarizing/checking some o f the information previously given by Jane— in the police
report and during the beginning of her pre-allocated tum:
— >
DS4
2 SW*:
=tá. Ôdona::: Jane^deixa eu entender uma coisa (.) a senhora diz que ele a
reading)) ameaça botar a senhora pra fora de casa e alega que tern um amante
{{stops reading)) e isso vem ocorrendo de quanto tempo pra çá que, >porque a
senhora disse que< houve uma t fase (.) em que os filhos dele levantaram a hipótese
d- da senhora ter um amante, aí depois os filhos saíram e se afastaram [(acabou)]
[foi ai que]=
=melhorou
3
4
Jane:
Jane:
— > 5
6
SW‘:
Jane:
[melhorou]
[deu algum] melhoramento
— ^ 7
SW*:
e agora (.) a coisa começou agora com seus filhos, seus filhos que tão negando?=
(.)
(.)
Jane’s confirmations o f the formulation made by the mediator reveals that SW^
has already grasped the possible problem Jane is facing at home: “a coisa começou
agora com seus filhos,” (now you are having trouble with your children,), in that “coisa”
refers to the conflict previously described by Jane herself As a potential problem is
found, the mediator leads the activity a step fiirther—finding out the reasons for the
problem she has identified:
DS4
8 Jane
- > 9 SW*
10 Jane
11 SW*:
=a mesma, è a mesma coisa, [aí]
[POR]QUE isso surgiu?=
=nesse meio tempo [agora] faz uns 2 anos dia 26 de janeiro fez 2 anos que ele teve=
[isso que eu,]
The status relationship Jane and the social worker establish during the occurance
invokes a subtle change in the participant framework. After self-selecting, the mediator
becomes the primary speaker^ whereas Jane becomes the primary recipient, and her
husband remains being the secondary recipient. Besides, Jane is projected as the one
who has to account for assertions previously made. In the next pages, I describe other
examples o f similar configuration to better understand what is going on here. The
following excerpt was taken from Rafael’s— Jane’s husband—^tura:
50
DS 4
- > 60 SW*:
61 Rafael:
62 SW':
[tá.1 mas o porquê, dessa questão assim d- de alegar que ela tem amante.=
=não, [(
)]
[isso tem fundamento,]
(.) ■
63 RaOiel;
64 SW':
tem fundamento sabe o que que acon[teceJ é que tquando a senhora procura ela,=
[umj
Here, the social worker makes a direct question to Rafael about the grounds (line
60), that is, about the evidence he has for claming that Jane has a lover.
However, the
account Rafael gives is not the preferred type in this situation. In turns 68 and 70,
below, SW^ challenges Rafael’s claims concerning his wife’s adulterous behavior:
DS4
65 Rafael:
66 SW*i
67 Rafael:
= que eu chego em casa pra procmar ela, ela tá no Paraná (.) tá em Porto Alegre, (.)
a gente não sabe onde é que anda=
=mas o senhor não soube tnada^ assim,. (.) [de de de ho-]
[não, (isso a-)] o que e- o que ela faz, é
papel de gente que vi- que não é tcerta.
(.)
— ^ 68
69
- > 70
71
SW :
Rafael:
SW :
Rafael;
[ela sai,lm as 0 senhor nunca VIU ela com homem, nunca soube dela com homem,=
[(
)]
= dessa coisa não. [concretamente,l>CONCRE]TA[MENTE<] rea-não,=
[bom, o-o-]
fo que ela diz.l
The arrowed turns above reveal that not just any explanation will do to function as
basis for the kind of complaint under discussion. After rejecting “going out” as an
account for the complaint, the mediator also rejects “o que ela diz,” (what she says) as
grounds for the case:
DS4
70 SW‘:
— > 71 Rafael;
— > 72 SW*:
73 Rafael:
74 SW‘;
= dessa coisa não. [concretamente, >CONGRE]TA[MENTE<] rea- nao,=
[bom, o-o-]
fo que ela diz.1
= o que o senhor imagina que ela feça, (.) a- a- isso eu não; [vou entrar nesse mérito]
[o que eu im agno] é que
ela me chama de como o que que a senhora quer que eu diga?=
=não, eu quero saber, não, não é nesse te- nisso que eu quero entrar, >eu quero
assim< concretamente. tem alguma história de- de ela ter enganado o senhor? alalguma coisa [conCRETA,]
As the mediator reveals in turn 74, above, what she considers to be concrete
evidence is “alguma história” (some story) about Jane’s supposed love affair. Still
34
Fomerantz i
51
Rafael does not provide the preferred evidence. In line 75, he insists on using Jane’s
words as evidence, which the mediator rejects once again (turn 76), by insisting on the
story type o f evidence:
DS4
75 Rafael:
76 SW':
[é é o] que ela fala [çros]
[EXIS]TE UMA PESSOA REAL que 0 senhor
soube, que [realmente^ (seu fulano),]
The next excerpt shows that it is not any story that serves as grounds to account
for Rafael’s accusation against Jane. Rafael mentions a narrative whose authorship he
attributes to their children (line 77, below), but about which he lacks details. As a
consequence, the social worker rejects the evidence he gives once more;
DS4
77 Rafael:
— >
— >
78 S W :
79 Rafael:
80 SW ;
[que os guris contavam,] (que) os guris nunca diziam quem é. também eu
nunca tentei descobrir, ((claps)) se era ou se não era=
=ahtá.=
=né=
=então, o senhor nunca soube [de na]da,=
As turn 80 above suggests, adequate evidence should be a complaint narrative
whose author would- he Ra.fa.el himself he should, have heard, or seen, some evidence for
his complaint. As Rafael is not able to give this type of evidence, the case is closed, and
he introduces a new complaint about Jane.
In the other sessions I studied, I also found passages in which the social' worker
tests the evidence the complainant gives. Below, an example from Soraia and Paulo’s
session;
— >
DS9
1 SW^:
2 Soraia:
e a senhora acredita nessas histórias que [contam,]
[olha,]
(.)
3
Soraia:
[eu antes] não [acredita[va]]
52
In the continuation o f the above sequence, Soraia accounts for the reasons that
lead her to believe in what other people say about her husband. This time the mediator
seems to be convinced by the evidence the complainant gives, as a later sequence
shows:
D S 10
1 SW^:
2
3
4
Paulo:
SW^:
Paulo:
é::. é seu Paulo assim ó, ela mostrou que (.) ela gosta do senhor né, eu acho assim ó
(.) [por] mais que a gente não acredite em intrigas=
[um,]
= alheias [néJ mas eu acho que o senhor tá dando motivo pra ser fala[do né,]
[um,]
[ã:]
I suggest that in giving and assessing evidence, complainant and mediator position
themselves as defendant and judge: the former claiming his/her assertions to be true and
the latter in search for the truth. In my data, I found one moment in which both
defendant and judge argue because Marco, the defendant, fails to account for his partial
denial o f the complaints his wife has made against him:
— >
DS 13
37 SW^:
38 Marco:
=então é mentira o que ela di[sse, que o senhor brigou com o vizinho, ali,]
[não (.) não (.) (la é,) não. xiu]
(.)
39 Marco:
40 Marco:
a um (.) lá umas coisas que ela fa- falou é verdade.
((pause))
lá umas coisas é verdade.
(.)
- > 4 1 SW^;
42 Marco:
^ 43 SW^:
44
45
46
47
48
Marco
SW":
Marco
SW":
Marco
0 quê que é verdade?=
=é um (.) o que ela falou (.) algumas coisas ali é verdade. [(
)]
[não A GENTE] TEM
QUE CONVERSAR DitREITO [POR QUE] SENÃO NÃO VAI DAR DE=
[éeu]
=CONVERSAR COM O SENHOR,=
=é eu sei=
=0 quê que é VERDADE o quê que é [MENtTIRA,]
[Té eu SÓI eu só falei assim que é:: tem tem
This excerpt shows both defendant and judge orienting to the assessment o f the
validity o f complaints previously made by Laura, who is then the secondary recipient
and potential victim. This type o f scene is not typical in mediated disputes in the CSs I
53
studied. However, by handling and analyzing the data, I have noticed that the process of
giving and assessing information seems to be always present in problem talk. What is
rare is questioning explicitly the truthfulness of accounts, as on line 47 above. Besides,
the more difficult it is to reach a consensus on who the victim is and what the problem
is, the more emergent are the organization resources that promote the assessment of
accounting practices. I remind the reader that I began this discussion on giving and
assessing evidence, when discussing about formulations. It seems to me that
formulations are strategies which contribute to the emergence of a hidden speech
activity o f problem talk—cross-examination. Disputes and cross-examinations are not at
r
all separable—^they are sequentially interdependent. Below, is a graphic representation
o f each o f these overlapping participant frameworks:
M[J]
/
\
C[PV]— - D[PC]
Mediated dispute[cross-examination framework]
M[J1; mediatorQudgel; CpV]: complainant[potential victim]
D[PC]: defendant[potential culprit]
-----------
primary speakers and recipients
_______
secondary speakers and recipients
Figure 3 - Participant framework in mediated dispute
Direct disputes: It’s vour fault!
In her study of mediation hearings, Garcia (1991) points out that adjacent
exchanges between disputants are likely to be cancelled by the mediator to prevent
interaction from turning into a fiall-fledged argument. Even though I also found
54
evidence of this same procedure on the part of the mediators in my data, this does not
happen every time disputants exchange oppositional utterances.
As they organize themselves as direct disputants, husband and wife become
primary speaker and recipient. In this framework, the social worker participates as a
secondary recipient. Direct disputes always emerge when A opposes B, who responds
then with another opposition turn. To exemplify this, I present next a segment taken
from the middle of Rafael’s pre-allocated turn. At this very moment, Jane’s conduct is
being scrutinized by the other interactants and she interferes, signaling opposition:
DS5
31 Rafael:
32 SW':
...>só paga viagem pra mãe< (.) deu televisão pra mãe deu tudo (.) iss- agora (>
no centro
ninguém
<) (.) saiu numa sex[ta,]
[ela] tem dinheiro?=
(•)
33 Rafael:
34 Jane:
[ela tratballha nega,
[(eu não.)]
35 Rafael:
ela ganha mais do que eu.
((pause))
ah, ela é faxi-(“ela é°)=
=eia, ela é [faxineira,]
[não é não eu,] eu tra-tra-eu trabalho em ca- >em casa de familia,< não é
tanto assim, não. só porque EU não boto o meu dinheiro fora njao,]
(.)
36 SW':
37 Rafael:
— > 38 Jane:
In turn 38 above, Jane verbalizes her opposition to Rafael’s previous assertion
about herself, saying it is not true that she earns so much. Besides, she stresses that she
does not waste money. Rafael opposes this assumption by laughing (line 39, below).
This is the way they engage in direct dispute:
DS5
38 Jane:
— > 39
40
41
42
43
44
Rafael:
Rafael:
Jane:
Rafael:
Rafael:
Jane:
[não é não eu,] eu tra-tra-eu trabalho em ca- >em casa de familia,< não
é tanto assim, não. só porque EU não boto o meu dinheiro fora nfão.l
[{{laughs))]=
=mas [se não gasta um tostão!]
[eu emprego eu sei] eu sei empregar [meu dinheiro]
[não gasta mn tostão com] pão,=
=é obri[gada] a [guardar] ditnheiro,=
[é::] [tclaro]
The linguistic procedures Jane and Rafael use to build opposition are compatible
with some of the features Goodwin (1990) has identified in disputes among children.
55
One o f these features concerns the production of an opposition turn immediately after
the opposed turn, that is, without delays before the production o f the disagreement. In
the excerpt above, opposition turns overlap each other, which contributes to highlight
disagreement even more.
Another feature o f disputes Goodwin describes and which I found in the data is
partial repetition. As Goodwin puts it “partial repetition of prior talk selects out a
particular part of prior speaker’s, talk to be focused upon”, that is, “to locate a trouble
source in another’s talk” (p. 146).^^ This is the strategy Rafael uses in the following
sequence, as he enacts the direct disputant role:
DS6
93 Jane:
94 Rafael;
95 Jane:
96 Rafael:
[se eu vender o] terreno >eu quero fazer a mi[nha] casa la=
[6]
=em Forqui[lha,]<
[6]
97 Rafael:
=[se ^ vender, o meu terreno.1
(.)
__ ^
In electing the assertion “se eu vender o terreno” as the trouble source, Rafael
reconstructs its meaning by including the pronoun “meu” (turn 97) and thus builds a
case against Jane, as the continuation of the segment shows:
DS6
^ 97 Rafael:
98 Jane:
=[se eu vender, o meu terreno.1
= [porque TU não vai fazer],
(.)
99 Jane:
tu não vai fazer=
100 Rafiiel: =>se eu vender [o meu terreno] não nega^< [é nosso, é dos FILHOS],
101 Jane:
[eu vou (ve-)].
[a minha idéia,]
(-)
102 Rafael: é dos filhos, nâa té-teu„ [tu-vai venderl a teu-terrenQ como.=
Rafael uses different language resources to contrast the idea that Jane refers to the
“terreno” as hers instead of referring to it as belonging to the whole family. He gives
prominence to this idea in turn 100, by accelerating his speech when he repeats her prior
56
talk and by decelerating talk and stressing and escalating the volume of key words when
he presents his correction o f the trouble source;
— >
DS6
100 Rafael; =>se eu vender [o meu terreno] não nega,< [é nosso, é dos FILHOS],
Still, it is noticeable that in building a case against Jane, Rafael does not seem to
orient to her ongoing actions. In other words, it is as if he was more engaged in building
the case against her than in discussing a problem they have recognized. In turn 101,
Jane tries to account for her assertions, but Rafael does not let her take the floor. The
emphasis and the escalation o f volume, in turn 100, may also be recognized as a
strategy he uses not to lose the floor:
— >
D S6
100 Rafael: =>se eu vender [o meu terreno] não nega,< [é nosso, é dos FILHOS],
101 Jane;
[euvou(ve-)]
[a minha idéia,]
(.)
102 Rafael; é dos filhos^ não t é teu, [tu vai vender] o teu terreno como,=
Some turns after the previous passage, Rafael says the following to the social
worker;
— >
DS6
108 Jane;
[(>eu não tenho papel.<)]
109 Rafael; [ô, doutora,] ela não >acabou de dizer,<=
110 SW :
=poisé, mas dona::,
When Rafael addresses the social worker, it seems that an activity that was
submerged comes to the surface o f talk. In implying that Jane is being contradictory
(line 109), Rafael makes SW^ side with him, by explicitly assessing the dispute. During
the dispute, Jane and Rafael offered the social worker “alternative and competing
descriptions” o f events (Drew, 1992, p. 472), actions that typify the performance of
attorneys and witnesses in cross-examination trials. The assessment o f the social
See Goodwin (1990) fora discnssion on the difference o f usingpartial repetitions in disputes, and in
disagreeing with prior speaker’s self-deprecation (Pomerantz, 1984b), as well as in other-initiated repair
(Schegjoff, Jefferson and Sacks, 1977).
57
worker, which was thus conditionally relevant, positions her as a judge—the one who
gives the verdict. Rafael’s utterance in the last segment suggests that he might have
recognized the hidden activity—the cross-examination— and that he may have designed
his previous actions taking this into account. In saying “ô, doutora, ela não >acabou de
dizer,<” (hey, doctor, hasn’t she just said) he elicits a response from a judge and not a
mediator.
In her response to Rafael’s action (turn 109), SW^ latches his turn to assess the
dispute (turn 110). By latching his turn, SW^ demonstrates that as the couple disputes,
she is observant. One might be intrigued by the fact that even though she has the
authority to, the mediator does not block the dispute in the segments discussed above
(what she sometimes does after allowing the couple to dispute a little). One explanation
for this may be the fact that open conflict is not totally avoided in CSs. As a matter of
fact, in the interviews made during fieldwork, the social workers referred to what I am
calling direct disputes as the best moments for observing couples “being themselves” in
counseling interaction. Therefore, allowing couples to organize themselves as direct
disputants is a resource the social workers use to have some access to the person behind
the mask. Finally, it is worth noticing that direct disputes only emerge when disputants
demonstrate eagerness to prove to be the victim. At moments like this, it becomes more
difficult for the social worker to choose a side.
I have thus discussed another participant framework of problem talk: the direct
dispute. This framework includes two overlapping types of organizations— the direct
dispute and the cross-examination frameworks. The configuration of status and roles are
represented below:
58
SW[JG]
/
>
/
r
/
\
\
\
\
N
C[PV] --------D[PC]
Direct dispute[Cross-examination framework]
SWfJD]: social worker [judge]; C[PV]: complainant[potential victim];
DpPC]: defendant [potential culprit]
primary speakers and recipients
secondary speakers and recipients
Figure 4 - Participant framework in direct dispute
As I have tried to demonstrate along the description of the participant frameworks
in problem talk, defining the problem and estabhshing the victim are goals that
coincide. The analysis o f the participant frameworks o f problem talk revealed that this
speech activity unfolds in two participant frameworks— mediated and direct disputes. In
addition, it reveals that problem talk is overlapped by a hidden speech activity; crossexamination. Therefore, while the husband and the wife complain and account for their
complaints, the social worker assesses their performances and chooses one o f the sides.
This way, a diagnosis is achieved and the spouse who can accountably claim to be the
victim is identified.
In the next section, I discuss the two other major speech activities of the event;
advice and agreement talk. I then show how a consensus as regards the
accomplishments o f problem talk is indispensable for these two activities to be pursued.
This is due to the fact that in problem talk the participants show extra (and meta) work
to define the situation (Goflfman, 1959, 1967), that is, to establish what roles and status
relationships will be enacted in the unfolding interaction.
59
4.1.3. Advice talk: In search o f solutions
Participants only engage in advice talk after they have established what the
problem is and who the culprit and victim are likely to be. Advice talk begins when the
social worker turns herself to whom she deems to be the blameworthy-party to give
advice and to propose solutions for the marital conflict. The next excerpt begins with
the SW^ giving her verdict to a dispute between Jane and Rafael on the “terreno” the
couple owns:
— >
DS6
133 SW*:
134 Jane:
135 SW*:
=pois é. mas o terreno, e e. nessa parte ele tern razão, a senhora pensa bem. Dona
Jane, vocês são casados com commihão de bem. (.) se não existe má fé de nenhmna
das partes, o PORQUÊ de não passar o terreno >que a senhora comprou da sua
irmã< pro seu nome,=
=porque [eu não posso,]
[dá licença.l a senhora vende (.) o terreno lá, pede pra sua irm- a sua mãe
vender, vocês vendem, fazem junto imia tçasa,=
In turn 133, the social worker moves from the role of judge (“pois é, mas o
terreno, e e, nessa parte ele tem razão,”) to the role of counselor (“a senhora pensa bem.
Dona Jane, vocês são casados com comunhão de bem. (.) se não existe má fé de
nenhuma das partes.”). Contrary to what usually happens in problem talk, here Jane tries
to take the turn (line 134) and the counselor does not allow her to do so (line 135). This
shows that, in advice talk, the counselor becomes the primary speaker. In addition, even
though the social worker does not explicitly state who she has elected as the victim, it
can be noticed that Jane is the one being advised and thus projected as culprit in the
ongoing talk, whereas Rafael plays the role of the victim. In turns 134 and 136,
however, Jane expresses her opposition to the proposed solutions the counselor
presents, and thus, her rejection o f the culprit role:
— >
Ds6
134 Jane:
135 SW*:
136 Jane:
=porque [eu não posso,]
[dá licença.] a senhora vende (.) o terreno lá. pede pra sua irm- a sua mãe
vender, vocês vendem, fazem junto uma tçasa,=
=eelequer?=
60
When Jane asks “e ele quer?” (line 136), she implies that the husband would not
accept the proposal made by the counselor. The counselor reacts to Jane’s assertion by
siding with the husband and accounting for the proposal made;
DS6
136 Jane:
137 SW':
=e ele quer?=
=porque-
(.)
__ ^
138
139
140
->■ 141
SW';
se To terrenol tiver no nome Td- dal senhora [oul de vocês.=
Rafael:
[mas eu mun]
[é]
[é]
Rafael: =>agora não. vou botar meu dinheiro< [(é se)]
SW';
[porque] na verdade, se voces continuar
juntos, >amanhã depois vocês morrem< o- a casa fica pros tfilhos.=
142 Rafael; =não vai ficar [pra irmã dela]
- > 143 SW';
[é naturall que fique (.) é natural que fique pros seus filhos, que são
seus herdeiros (.) e amanhã depois se vocês se separar, o certo (.) a metade é de cada
um. isso aí é tjusto. a senhora não pode querer tsó pra senhora.
What is interesting to note in the passage above is that in playing the role o f the
counselor, SW^ also plays the spokesperson. Note the way her speech and Rafael’s
synchronize— his talk shadows hers. Even though they do not use the same words, they
seem to be orienting to the same idea. As the following excerpts show, the accounts the
counselor gives to Jane—the elected culprit—recalls complaints made by Rafael— the
elected victim—^before. In the last segment, the counselor advises Jane to register the
ground plot under their names. Some minutes before this, Rafael and Jane have disputed
over the same issue, and Rafael has complained about the fact that it was registered
under one of Jane’s sisters:
— >
DS6
124 Rafael; >EU VOU BOTAR O MEU DINHEIRO EM CIMA [DO] TERRENO P A ]=
125 Jane:
[tu]
[tu]
126 Rafael: =IRMÃDELA?<=
127 Jané:
=tu não vai botar nada=
Continuing in advice talk, the counselor tries to reach an agreement, putting new
proposals forward, but these are never settled. Jane opposes all proposals. It is likely
that, by accepting them, Jane would become the culprit. The lack o f consensus
regarding whose behavior is to be changed leads the social worker to make her
61
diagnosis explicit. Making diagnosis explicit is thus a resource the social worker uses to
provide some consensus with regard the definition of the situation;
D S7
SW ;
Rafael;
— > SW‘;
0 que é que tá estragado, é falta de confianca. vocês são um casal e um tá
desconfiando do outro, um puxa pra um lado [o outro puxa pro outro enquan]to=
[eu eu eu não desconfio, tia]
=pai e mãe, >só um pouquinho seu RafaeK en-en-enquanto pai e mãe não se unir
os filhos vão ficar divi^dos (.) aí os filhos vão, vão pender logicamente pra aquele
que se mostra mais >tvítim a,< (.) não é,
(.)
SW‘;
Jane;
SW ;
— >
SW ;
Jane;
SW';
— >
SW ;
de repente [pode] até que ele não seja a vitima mas ele, (.) no momento, (.)=
[claro]
=0 homem que (.) a a senhora pensa bem,
((pause))
a gente que vê de longe. (.) eu não tse i a [realidade] de vocês, (.) né? (.) não posso=
[°é, eu sei°]
=julgar, (,) mas assim, o perfil que vocês me trazem, a a a >o coisa<. ele sai às 4 da
manhã e chega às 7 da noite, quer dizer, ele batalha.
(•)
Jane;
ele não é um vadio, não é uma pessoa tal, (.) chega em casa, não tem comida feita,
não sei por que motivos também, >não estou entrando [nisso,]<
[mas,]
Jane:
SW;
=mas [temi comida.
[É,]
(.)
(.)
^
Jane:
SW';
SW ;
[(mas tem comida)]
[>mas eu não esto»! entrando nessa questão< agora, quem escuta de fora, (.) >vai
entender que ele é a tvítima<
((pause))
>tá entendendo,<
Still Jane does not accept the role and by the end of the session, after another
proposal o f the social worker, the participants’ disagreement is highlighted:
DS8
1 SW‘;
... agora não adianta dona Jane, se a senhora não mostrar, não der o primeiro passo,
as coisas não vão entrar, eu tô, tô sendo clara e honesta com a senhora
(.)
2
3
Jane;
SW':
[eu concordo]
[não vejo]
4
SW':
não vejo de que outra forma mudar isso, aí (.) só tem uma solução pra vocês
5
6
7
SW':
Jane:
Jane:
aí então [vamos entrar] com uma-é.=
[separação]
=separação
8
9
10
11
Jane:
SW ;
Jane:
SW':
pra Tnós uma separação. =
não. eu acho que a solução pri[meira] não é a separação, só se a senhora=
[não]
=realmente não quer que ele herde Tnada, os filhos, aí sim.=
(•)
(■)
(.)
62
As can be seen, contrary to problem talk, during advice talk, the social worker is
the primary speaker, whereas the primary recipient is the diagnosed culprit-party, who is
then also advisee. The social worker plays the role of counselor and spokesperson, as
she speaks for the victim, using her/his complaints previously made as the grounds for
advice. The other participant is the victim and secondary recipient.
C/S
/
A/EC----- EV
Advice talk
C/S: counselor/spokesperson; A/EC: advisee/elected culprit
EV: elected victim
primary speakers and recipients
secondary speakers and recipients
Figure 5 —Participant framework in advice talk
4.1.4. Agreement talk: Reaching the end
Agreement is reached by the end of the session, after proposals have been
discussed and advice displayed. In this activity, the participants establish the necessary
steps to be taken to promote some change in the marital conflict. The next excerpt, from
Laura and M arco’s session, is an example of how this takes place:
DS 14
SW^:
Marco:
SW^:
Marco:
SW^:
Marco:
SW^:
Marco:
SW^:
Marco:
SW":
então a gente vai fazer assim, seu Marco,=
=°tá,°=
=se o senhor voltar a incomodar a dona Laura vai vim aqui=
=°tá [eu sei] °
[vai avi]sar a gente (.) a gente vai encaminhar ela pro advogado (.) o juiz vai
lhe tirar de dentro de casa (.) o senhor não vai ter garantia nenhuma. =
=°é°=
=tá? (.) 0 senhor não vai mais poder voltar pra çasa (.) se voltar pra casa vai ser
preso.=
=(°
°)=
=não pode mais entrar em casa.=
=°á eu. seL djsso°=
=tá?=
63
Marco;
SW^:
Marco:
SW^:
=°tá certo°=
=0 senhor pode achar que nós tamos falando (.) de brincadeira [mas é verdade]
[não eu sei que é] eu
sei que é (.) [a senhora não tá falando de brincadeira,]
[nós estamos fazendo,]
(.)
Marco;
SW":
(
=tá.
)=
SW";
Marco:
SW":
a gente não quer o mau de vocês nós estamos aqui justamente pra ajudá-los, né (.)
então isso que a gente tá fazendo é pro senhor botar a mão na consciência [e ver o]=
[tá bom]
=que realmente tá fazendo.
Marco:
pode deixar.=
(.)
(.)
After the participants reach a final agreement, it is made official in a document
called folha de rosto do serviço social, which contains the agreed steps to be taken as
well as observations regarding what happened in the session (a copy in appendix B5).
As in advice talk, during agreement talk the primary recipient is the elected culprit. The
social worker is the primary speaker and occupies again her official role as a police
officer. The participant fi’amework of agreement talk is illustrated below:
SW
/
\
E V ----- EC
Agreement talk
SW: social worker; V: victim; C: culprit
primary speakers and recipients
secondary speakers and recipients
Figure 6 - Participant framework in agreement talk
Following, I present a drawing to help us visualize the major speech activities o f
the event as well as the main tasks participants accomplish in each of them:
64
Cx
Giving/receiving Establishing the
steps to be taken
advice
fe
Establishing the
ritual order
Direct dispute
[cros»«aminalion]
Figure 7 —Graph o f speech activities and tasks
In practice, the boundaries that separate mechanics, problem, advice and
agreement talk are permeable and participants may act more than once in a scene, as
interaction unfolds. If, for instance, the advisee does not accept guilt or opposes the
diagnosis, it is likely that problem talk will be performed again and participants may
come up with a new diagnosis and a new definition of the situation. As we have seen,
the centrality o f problem talk in the event is due to its status as the act in which
diagnosis is reached and the victim identified—^two accomplishments which are
necessary for advice talk and agreement talk to be performed. Vuchinich (1990) points
out that conflict in ordinary talk may end up without consensus on the disagreement. In
his words: “[p]articipants can tacitly agree to disagree and move on to other speech
activities” (p. 119). This is not true for CSs, however. If there is no consensus as to who
the victim is, and what the problem is, participants are not likely to tune into other
speech activities.^®
This is exemplified in section 4.1.3, in which I show the effort of the social worker to position the Jane,
the wife, as culprit and to engage in advice and agreement talk. That interaction ends up in verbal
disagreement.
65
Having described the four major speech activities of the event, I turn now to a
brief discussion on a discrepant session.
4.2. Exploring the discrepant
Among the four CSs I observed and selected for this study, there is one— Lia and
Jonas’—which develops in unique ways. Since the beginning of the session, things do
not happen as usual:
DSl
1 SW :
2
SW :
3
Lia:
4
5
6
Lia:
SW‘:
Jonas:
{{reading o f the police report))
((pause))
isso (.) aconteceu (.) em deTzembro,
((pause))
foi a época que a gente estava.
(.)
[brigados]
[separados]
[conflito] interno é,=
Mechanics talk, which is usually present in the beginning of sessions, is absent
here. It is probably due to the fact that instead of confirming the police report, Lia
repairs it. In turn 3, she refers to the couple’s marital conflict, described in the police
report SW^ reads, as something that belongs to the past: “foi a época” (it was the time
when).
Besides the absence of mechanics talk—^which they never engage in throughout
the session—^the other activities are not carried out in a typical way. Lia and Jonas do
not take pre-allocated turns, nor do they enter into a dispute. However, they do pursue
their institutional tasks, by engaging in problem talk, advice talk and agreement talk.
The following data excerpt comes after SW^ response to Lia’s questioning about the
fijnction o f CSs. In turn 8, Lia begins doing problem talk:
DS2
— > 8 Lia:
t é porque: o nosso problema maior é con- nós temos conflito, é muito conflito, sabe
(.) é, (
) a menina né, ela tem::, problemas::, que. antes (dele passar) ele foi
um pai muito ag-essivo né, >° batia muito °< ela ficou muito,=
66
9 SW‘:
10 Lia;
11 Jonas;
12 SW':
=traumatizada=
=é. então TODO TODO o motivo do que acontece o que acontece t((É o pai,
[É 0 pai, É 0 pai,] É o pai)),'l^ então ficou aquela COlsa assim, né,=
[T(C>É o pai, É o pai, É o pai<))i]
=arram,
Lia is extremely cautious in revealing what she considers to be the reason for their
conflict. The language resources (vowel allongation, lowered volume and fast talk) she
uses to introduce the problem de-emphasize the accusatory tone that could frame
interaction as dispute. Besides, Jonas does not oppose Lia’s assertion. On the contrary,
he overlaps her turn, stressing her words (turn 11). Lia and Jonas are thus not projected
as disputants, nor is the social worker projected as mediator. This participant framework
is not exclusive of problem talk in this session. The other speech activities are also
organized in different ways if compared to the typical sessions I described earlier. W hat
makes them different is the fact that there is no search for the victim, and thus, during
advice and agreement talk, no participant enacts this role.
This discrepant case thus demonstrates two important aspects of counseling
interaction. First, that disputing, complaining and searching for the victim are activities
that are linked to each other. Second^ that the search for the victim is not an imminent
task of counseling sessions. As a matter of fact, it is when the husband and the wife
complain about each other that dispute ensues and that the establishment of the victim—
the winner of the dispute—^becomes the main task in the agenda.
According to the social workers’ view, the main point in their agenda is the
diagnosis of the problem, that is, the identification of the source of the couple’s trouble
(“objeto do problema,” as they refer to it), and the objective o f CSs is to change
people’s conduct (“mudar comportamentos”). It is not surprising that mediators orient to
the search for the one whose behavior is there to be changed, as conduct is itself framed
67
as the problem. In this regard, the social workers showed contradictory viewpoints
during fieldwork. If I asked them explicitly if they had any concern with finding out the
victim and the culprit, they denied. Marta, the more experienced social worker, for
example, mentioned the issue o f the exchange o f roles to me several times, by telling
me that there were sessions in which the husband became the victim, and the wife, the
culprit of the story. They said to be aware that this could happen, but not deliberately as
a result of their agenda.
An issue that still deserves discussion is the reason that leads couples into dispute
within problem talk, Vuchinich (1990) points out that during verbal dispute there is a
lack of consensus on some feature of the world. Concerning problem talk in the
interactions studied here, it seems that wife and husband lack consensus on the reasons
for the marital conflict. As complaints are made, it becomes evident that such reasons
are related to one o f the parties’ misconduct (offending someone, drinking too much) or
personal characteristic (being irresponsible, selfish). During problem talk, wife and
husband oppose each other, expressing their disagreement about yvho the perpetrator o f
the marital conflict is. Complaining is a way of putting the other on the spot, as the
defendant, which is the part to be played before being the culprit, as one gains the latter
position only by virtue o f having previously occupied the former. Complaining is also a
way of projecting one’s own identity as victim.
This chapter described the major accomplishments of the participants o f
counseling
sessions.
The
description
revealed
that
participants’
actions
are
institutionally shaped, as they generally go through the four major speech activities
identified. However, pre-existing orders are challenged by interactants’ actions, since
the actual accomplishments are locally achieved. This happens, for example, when the
68
wife, the a priori victim, becomes the culprit for the marital problems, an interactional
movement which reveals identity “as a local phenomenon that is displayed and
constituted in situated institutional activities” (Aronsson, 1998, p. 81).
Finally, by analyzing the participant frameworks typical and atypical in the CSs I
observed, I could construct a better understanding of what goes on in this setting. This
achievement was extremely relevant for me to approximate an emic view o f these
encounters as well as to carry out the analysis of face-work in disputes for the victimrole to be presented in the next chapter.
CHAPTER 5
MAKING A GOOD SHOWING OF O N E ’S OWN SELF:
AN ANALYSIS OF FACE-WORK IN DISPUTES FOR THE VICTIM-ROLE
“The very existence o f conflict and schism in social life depends on the
possibility o f there being alternative and competing accounts o f the same social
event (...we tend, in the stories we tell, to be the heroes o f our tales, at least in so
fa r as any grievance is ours and the fa u lt the o th er’s) ”.
(Drew, 1998, p. 322)
In the previous chapter, I examined the major constituents o f counseling
interaction as well as the participant frameworks that characterize each o f them. As I
have pointed out, participants of the event demonstrate concern with defining the
problem and establishing who the victim is. It is exactly during the activity I have
named problem talk that they achieve such goals. Problem talk generally unfolds in two
participant frameworks; the mediated and the direct dispute, whose key interactional
actions are complaints.
In this chapter, I initially discuss the face-relationships the participants establish
as they engage in mediated dispute and in the other participant framework which
overlaps with it— cross-examination. I do this by contrasting the findings o f previous
studies on the relation between mediation and face (Garcia, 1991; Volkema, 1988) to
what I see as regards this relation in the setting I studied. This analysis reveals that even
though mediation protects participants from face-loss, it does not preclude face-threats.
Besides^ it shows that complaints are used by co-disputants as threats to the other’s face
and as a face-enhancing action towards one’s own face— a type of usage that Goffman
(1967) calls the aggressive use o f face-work. I then move on to apply Gumperz’s (1982)
70
notion of contextualization cues to describe the linguistic features of the aggressive use
o f face-work, that is, to provide a closer examination o f face-work in complaining.
5.1. Face-work in disputes in counseling interaction
What called my attention the most when I first observed a counseling session (CS)
for couples was the aggressive way husband and wife acted toward each other. It is true
that not all the sessions that compose my data display the same degree of aggravation.
As I showed in chapter 4, there is even one (discussed in section 4.2) in which the
participants do not engage in dispute. However, it is observable that in all the sessions
in which there is dispute, opposing parties build up their self-image by threatening the
other’s face. It is generally in this way that self esteem is maintained and/or enhanced in
counseling interaction disputes.
As I became acquainted with the literature on mediation (Garcia, 1991; Volkema,
1988), I found that there are different findings as regards the relation between this type
o f interactional organization and face. In his analysis of mediation processes, Volkema
demonstrates how difficult it is for disputants to negotiate their social images and at the
same time reach agreement on the matters being disputed. As he puts it “in times o f
conflict, individuals often are more concerned with self-preservation than they are with
the need of opponents, particularly if ..others are watching” (p. 5). Therefore, they are
likely to become self-righteous and to “produce incompatible images and patterns o f
behavior that lead inevitably to entrapment or embarrassment” (p. 8, 9). In order to
provide for resolution to be achieved, mediators need to play the role offace manager,
helping disputants to avoid the “right-or-wrong mentality” (p. 8) and thus to settle on
acceptable public images.
71
Garcia (1991), however, shows that in the mediation hearings she studies, the
interactional organization makes it possible for the participants to manage accusations
and denials while saving face. First, because accusations and denials are not adjacent
pairs. Second, because they are addressed to the mediators rather than to co-disputants.
Besides, denials are delayed and thus can be selectively responded to. Furthermore,
denials and accusations are likely to be mitigated rather than aggravated.
First handlings of my data suggested that despite the mediation procedures, the
co-disputants’ faces were threatened. Having the two cited studies in mind, I decided
then to investigate how face-work was carried out in mediated disputes and in its
overlapping activity—cross-examination. The aims of the following analysis are thus
twofold: first, to describe the face-relationships provided by the mediation organization
in CSs; second, to examine the linguistic features participants use to save/threat face.
5.1.1. The aggressive use of face-work in mediated disputes
In the CSs I studied, keeping face gets even more complicated than in the setting
studied by Volkema, where negotiating face is something interactants do as they
negotiate dispute issues. In counseling interaction disputes, the participants end up
orienting to the “right-or-wrong mentality” Volkema mentions, which is typical o f legal
procedures. Having to account for their own and an intimate’s conduct to a third person,
disputants are likely to praise the self to the detriment of the other.
As regards Garcia’s findings, what I have noticed in my data, is that even though
sharing some of the features of the mediations studied by her, the mediation procedures
in CSs do not avoid disputants to cross-complain, that is, to complain about each other.
On the contrary, as I have showed in the previous chapter, complaints fiinction as
interactional resources for mediators to assess whose conduct is perpetrating the
72
couple’s marital conflict. As for the disputants, complaining is a way of portraying the
other’s conduct as wrong and thus of fighting to keep one’s face. As I will show in the
analysis of the next data segments, disputants use complaints as face-threats, but also as
face-keeping devices. Regarding the use o f threats to enhance face, Goffinan (1967)
calls it the aggressive use of face-work (see section 2.2.1. of this thesis), which, as he
says, is very risky to participants’ faces.
Below, I proceed to the description of four segments taken from mediated
disputes/cross-examination. Examples 1 and 2 are from Jane and Rafael’s session, and
examples 3 and 4 are from Laura and Marco’s.
Example 1: “I ’m an honest person... they call me hitch ’’
The following segment begins with the mediator asking Jane details regarding a
previous complaint made by the wife herself Jane has complained to the mediator about
being accused by her husband and children o f having a love affair. This is the issue SW^
introduces in turn 2 and which causes Jane’s face to be threatened, as her next facekeeping actions dernonstrate:
DS4
— > 2 SW :
-> 3
4
5
6
-> 7
8
9
Jane
SW
Jane
SW‘
Jane
SW*
Jane
ttá dona Jane, e de dois anos pra cá que foi levantado de novo a história de
atmante, e se- não sabe nada assim, eles apontam, alguém, ou só::, acusam
alguém?=
=não.=
=houve alguma,=
=e [e]
[fo]foca, alguma coisa?=
=eu não sei se eles explicaram, eu sou mulher que eu trabalho,=
=am,=
=tenho. tenho formação, trabalho, eu trabalho em casa de família, tem vários, (.)
PODE perguntar à à vizinhança lá, que eu acho que nintguém pode me levantar
isso, (.) que eu sou (.) eu sou, Tuma mulher eu acho que ele não merece TANTO a
minha honestitdade.
(.)
>■ 10 Jane:
ele não merece a a a honestidade minha não. pelo homem que ele é, eu acho que ele
não não merece a minha honestidade, aí ne ne nesse meio tempo aí, (.) quando ele
ganhou os doze mil real ele começou:::, só a andar:, que aí o médico suspendeu do
serviço e ele ficou com medo de trabalhar, daquele restante do dinheiro que sobrou
(do) tcarro, (.) el- ele pegou o dinheiro e guardou lá na vi^nha. (.) >não deixou
73
11 SW‘:
dentro de tcasa porque eu era ladrona,< (.) ele me ass-. me ae:: >me acusa de tudo
quanto é tcoisa,< (.) >eu sou ladrona. sou tudo pra ele.<=
=um:=
Instead o f providing a direct answer to the mediator’s question, by telling her
details about the love affair issue, Jane contrasts the kind of person she is to the kind of
person her husband is. The question done by the mediator threatens Jane’s face and thus
provides for the conditional relevance (Levinson, 1983) of the emergence o f a faceenhancing context, which Jane orients to as she asserts to be a person who works (lines
7 and 9), who is honest (lines 9 and 10) and who is the victim of constant accusations at
home (line 10). In uttering the word “acusa” (accuses), in turn 10 (after searching for a
word), Jane seems to be signalling back to the issue of the love affair the mediator has
brought up in turn 2 (“acusam alguém?”). However, we lack evidence for this claim, as
Jane does not refer to this explicitly, nor does the mediator recall the issue again. By
explicitly formulating her conduct as righteous and her husband’s as wrong, Jane is
likely to be contributing for her husband’s face to be threatened and therefore also for
her own face to be threatened as well. The following segment comes after the previous
one and shows Rafael, Jane’s husband, making an interference in her pre-allocated turn
to signal his opposition to what she is saying about their daughter. This may be taken as
a signal that his face is being threatened by Jane’s complaints:
DS4
12 Jane:
...que ela não é:, não é:, não é luna boa filha não.
(.)
— >
— >
13 Rafael:
14 Jane:
{(nods negatively))
[ella, ela, nun nun, ai (.) ele faz as coisas, ai um dia eu fui tomar café começava a
comer as coisas, >ele começou a arregalar os olhos pra mim.<
By nodding negatively, Rafael may be suggesting that what Jane is saying is not
true. This makes her reframe the subject she is talking about. She was talking about her
daughter’s appraisals of self (“não é uma boa filha não”) and then she begins talking
about a specific event in which the husband did not allow her to eat. In the continuation
74
o f this sequence, she tells the mediator a narrative in which this time the daughter did
not let her eat. This is transcribed in the next excerpt. What is noticeable here is Jane’s
use o f direct speech and the way she contextualizes this;
DS4
16 Jane;
...ai até que um dia ela veio fazer essa tjan^ta, (.) eu disse assim t ((é então nós hoje
nós vamos ter uma, uma, nós vamos ter u m a : ( ( p a u s e ) ) T((nós vamos ter então
a:: jantinha,))^ t ( ( t é tu não és nem louca, tu não és nem doida tu, tu comer, que eu
já te falei que tu não vais comer,))4 eu digo t((eu vou coTmer)) (.) aí eu bati pé. (.)
eu digo t((eu vou comer. ) ) i t((ah mas tu não é, tu não é nem nem louca. gima))4'
(.) tá (.) aí, >arrumou a mesa, não botou meu prato passei-lhe a mão, sentei na
mesa,< ((pause)) passei-lhe a mão, (.) botei o prato, (.) puxei o arroz >ela tinha feito
arroz< (.) arroz, macarrão, maionese, galinha e farofa, aí a farofa ela tava, tava, tava
terminando de fazer, NUNca cozinhou no dia que foi cozinhar inven-invocou que eu
não ia eu digo t((eu vou cotmer))4- (.) t((pode dar o que tder, mas que eu vou
— ^ — > comer eu vou,))4' onde é que se viu, (.) e eele apóia muito estas tolices dos filhos (.)
(porque) ele não toma uma autoridade dentro de casa (.) ele bota os filhos tudo
contra mim, (.) aí, passei lhe a mão, botei o prato...
In her narrative, Jane includes her own as well as her daughter’s past words, that
is, she takes prior utterances “situated in a particular context and unearths [them] and
gives [them] a life again in the new soil of the reporting context” (Buttny, 1998, p. 56).
Jane’s last utterances represented in the segment above seem to signal to her recipient
how to hear what she is saying. She blames her husband for instigating their children
against her (“ele bota os filhos tudo contra mim”). However, the way the mediator
interferes in a later moment suggests that she orients more to direct speech than to the
contextual statements:
D S4
16 Jane;
— >
17 SW‘:
18 Jane;
...aonde é que se viu uma filha fazer tvmi, lun dia irnia janta e não (e INVOCAR)
que eu não ia cotmer, mas isso ele já vem falando {{crackles fingers as she speaks
the following three words)) há muitos tempo que eu não ia mais comer dentro de
casa, ia passar-lhe a mão (em-) (.) a mão com a o prato ia, ia, >ia jogar nela,< ai ele
correu lá do quarto e:: e >agarrou< T((tnão (.)>vocês não tão vendo que não se fala
com é< com essa sem vergonha, com essa vagabunda. (.)>que isso aí não sei o que,
isso aí não sei,< (.) >isso aí nem nem é mulher pra tá mais dentro aqui, dentro de
casa,< (.) >se (tu) bobear eu (tento por) ela na ma <))'^ eu digo t((m eu filho, (.) não
é bem aissim , (.) não é bem assim (.) eu sou mulher, eu tenho vinte e 24 anos de
PAPEL assinado contigo, não é bem assim como tu tá falando não.))i >porque eu
toda a vida falei com te le com calma< (.) >porque os papel que ele anda fazendo, eu
era pra ser mulher pra, pra tratar no pau e rachar na cateça de um [(
<)]
[tá. (.) dona Jane,]
eu já entendi a sua parte, dona Ja (.) dona Jane ttodos os outros filhos tratam a
senhora assim?=
=todo ele (.) ele manda. >tesse pequeninho chama eu de tvaca, de tégua, de tputa,
de galinha, de tudo quanto é coisa,<
75
The mediator’s utterance, in turn 17, reveals that Jane’s narrative has aroused her
interest in knowing more about the way Jane and their children treat each other. The use
o f the word “assim” (this way) to refer to the way Jane’s daughter treats her ftmctions as
a face-saving strategy—indirectness—which recalls the moral load of the issue in a way
similar to what Linell and Bredmar (1996) describe in their analysis of face-work in
talks between midwives and expectant mothers (summarized in section 2.2.2.). In turn
18, Jane makes explicit what was mitigated in the mediator’s speech and aggravates
threats against her husband’s face. She does this by uttering words she says her
youngest son uses to refer to her—foul language words— and she explicitly blames her
husband for making the children treat her the way they do. Jane thus demonstrates
engagement in constructing a reprehensible image for her husband. However, the image
projected for any participant is a construct of all the parties present, and thus any
projection which comes out o f a description o f one interactant may be challenged by
another. No actor has the entire control of their own selves (Gofi&nan, 1959). As
Schiffrin (1988) puts it,
whatever it is that one attempts to mean through one’s individual efforts at
expression cannot alone create a self; those expressive meanings have to be
understood and acted upon by the one to whom they are directed, (p. 266)
Example 2: ‘‘I ’m the one who cleans the house ”
During Rafael’s pre-allocated turn, the mediator brings back the discussion about
the conflict between Jane and their children. In blaming Jane herself for the way the
children treat her, Rafael contributes for his own face to be kept, and hers, thus, to be
threatened;
— >
DS5
18 Rafael:
=tá, então tudo isso tá revoltando os guris (.) os guris querem ir pra escola, não tem
luna roupa patssada, uma roupa latvada. (.) o banheiro tá- chama os guris aqui,
quem limpa o banheiro e faz faxina no banheiro >sou eu de noite quando chego do
serviço,< (.) a pia dessa altura de >roupa< de louça, E ELA >vai pro carismático
toda dia de tnoiíe,<
76
(.)
19 SW ;
20 Rafael;
vaipraonde?=
=carismática, pra igreja, [>nãol não sei o quê que ela faz na igreja, tanto na=
21 SW‘;
[tã;]
22 Rafael;
= igreja que.< o- ela a vida que ela passa deus eu acho que >não tá abençoando lá de
cima tanto assim também<
23 Rafael;
e eu fico. venho do serviço às 7 horas, vou pra pia lavar louça, vou limpar banheiro,
e vou fazer a limpeza da minha tcasa? (.) e ela faz o que? e ela quer ser santa
ain[da?]
[e is]so veio há dois tanos, [esse desentendi-]=
[é já uns 3] anos pra cá que ela não fez mais na[da]
24 SW ;
25 Rafael;
(■)
26 SW‘;
27 SW‘;
[e;]=
=não mas eu digo assim, e antes o relacionamento dela com os filhos, antes desses 2
anos, com os seus filhos, era bom?
In this segment, Rafael depicts himself as the one who works a lot and also takes
care o f the house. Just like Jane does in the first excerpt of example 1, above, here,
Rafael contrasts his and her conduct. The contrast is signalled as he utters
ELA”
(turn 18) and “e ela” (turn 23). Jane is here being projected as the mother who does not
get along with their children because she does not take care of them the way she should.
In turn 23, Rafael demonstrates his opposition to Jane’s claims of good character; “e ela
quer ser santa ainda?” (and she still thinks she deserves to be considered righteous?). A
cultural and moral assumption which is not explicitly mentioned but which is made
relevant in the above passage concerns how a mother should behave. The way Rafael
puts it, he is a person that not only performs his duties but also performs Jane’s. The
mediator’s utterance in turn 27 shows that she corroborates his implied assertions, as
she refers to Jane’s relationship with her children as being in trouble nowadays; “antes o
relacionamento dela com os filhos...era bom?” (and was her relationship with her
children good before this?).
Example 3; “He is a drunkard”
In a passage taken from Laura’s turn, the mediator tries to elicit information about
Marco’s drinking habits. The mediator shows orientation towards saving the husband’s
77
face. In line 81, the paralinguistic cues (vowel alongation) signal the sensitivity o f the
issue o f drinking, which is not directly referred to by SW^. It is only in line 86 that the
mediator introduces the key term, which is again preceded by vowel alongation. This
time the husband latches on to the mediator’s utterance to deny this:
DS 12
80 Laura:
— > 81 SW^:
82 Laura:
83 SW":
84 SW":
85 Laura:
- > 86 SW":
87 Marco:
tudo (que) é palavrão ele dizia (.) [é um boca suja]
[e;; ele nunca fez ã:;], nunca fez um tratamento
dona Laura, pra=
=mas [ele não] tbC'l-be todo dia. (.) sem bebida ele é mal criado mesmo=
[(
)]
=sim=
=não é Tsó com a bebida.
((pause))
mas ele chega a ser::: alcootlista. assim?=
=não, [tsi, tsi]=
Even though the mediator shows sensibility towards Marco’s face, Laura does
not. The wife even aggravates the threat by saying that the husband’s reprehensible
conduct is not caused only by drinking: “sem bebida ele é malcriado mesmo” (he is
aggressive even when he does not drink). Still, note that M arco’s denial (turn 87) comes
after the utterance that characterizes him as a potential drunkard (turns 86). This
happens again in the continuation o f the sequence:
D S 12
88 SW":
89 Laura:
90 SW";
91 Laura;
— > 92 Marco;
93 SW":
[ele bebe com freqüência]=
=ele diz que [tá bêbado (quando)] quer, mas sempre ele tá >bêbado<. sábado=
[fica bêbado,]
ainda [ele] chegou bêbado=
[tsi]
=a[rram]
Marco’s urgency in denying that he is a drunkard suggests that being projected in
this social identity is face-threatening.
Example 4: “Somethin 2 pulls me ’’
Below, I present a segment from the beginning of M arco’s pre-allocated turn. He
opens the turn apologizing for the complaints Laura has made against him:
78
DS 13
6
7
8
Marco:
eu não vou fazer mais, acabou-se. (.) já (.) não, eu estou disposto,
[pode (pode >} (na> minha palavra
(Laura): [então tá]
((pause))
Marco: (
) não vou fazer mais, não vou beber mais, (.) vou, vou até, vou até sair dah,
(.) EU vou sair, vou até (
) vou pra casa do filho dela, do meu filho, vou
pra lá, pronto, acabou-se (.) não vou, não vou incomodar mais,
(.)
— >
9
Marco:
pode crer que eu não vou fazer isso mais,
Through apologizing. Marco admits the previous accusations and thus projects
himself as the culprit. His next actions, however, seem to orient to lessening the facethreat caused by the acceptance o f the culprit-role:
— ^
D S 13
10 Marco:
— >
11 Marco:
eu tenho:, eu sou assim sabe eu, (.) eu sou um cara que eu:: sou analfabeto, não sei
ler. não sei nada (.) mas eu sou, eu gosto de fazer as minhas brincadeiras,
— >
12 Marco:
eu tgosto de fatzer as brincadeiras, eu toco gaita, brinco (.) mas eu não, não sou de
briga, mas tem hora que o cara, não sei, (.) eu chego em casa é aquela, parece que
tem uma coisa que me, é senhora, parece que tem uma coisa que me PUxa.
13 Marco:
e eu.nâo sau.tdisso.
14 Marco:
eu não sou disso.=
o o a gente- a gente te- a- a gente não é (isso) a gente às vezes tem- o- a gen- eu
tenho até tm edo senhora. (.) hoj-, essa noite eu nem tdormi.
(.)
(■)
(.)
(.)
Even though he accepts guilt, Marco acts in a way to preserve his self, by
accounting for his past actions. He does this through praising his social image, by
referring to wrongdoings as actions which are out o f his control. It is not that he is
aggressive by choice. As he puts it “parece que tem uma coisa que me PUxa” (it seems
that there is something that pulls me). This is an example of the “he/she/it made me do
it” kind o f excuse (Buttny, 1993, p. 2).^^
Regarding the face-relationships established among the mediator and the
disputants, mediation in CSs provides for an organization in which the negotiation of
79
disputants’ selves is explicitly in the focus of attention. I did not find in the data any
moment within mediated disputes in which the mediator’s appraisals o f self are
explicitly called into question. As examples 1 (SW' and Jane) and 3 (SW^ and Laura,
about Marco) above have shown,^ the mediator uses language resources to mitigate the
potential threat that might be provoked towards primary or secondary recipients’ faces
by the topics being talked about. Therefore, the mediator cannot avoid talking about the
social conduct of the parties present. The recipient whose conduct is being checked is
likely to react in ways which demonstrate her/his objection to or acceptance of the
image being projected for her/him, and thus her/his objection to or acceptance of the
faces being constructed for her/him. This suggests that being depicted in certain ways
may or may not enhance face. Generally, being accused of having a lover, of being a
drunkard, of being an aggressive husband, or a mother that does not take care o f the
children—thus a defendant and potential culprit for the problems—threatens face in this
setting. Contrarily, accusing the other and being depicted by one’s own in a righteous
image— a complainant and potential victim— is face enhancing. Finally, no moment of
face-loss was identified during mediated disputes.
In the following subsection, I describe the typical language resources the
participants of CSs use to aggravate face-threats in mediated disputes.
5.1.1.1. Aggravating face-threats
In this section I apply Gumperz’s (1982) notion of contextualization cues to the
identification of the language resources disputants make use of to aggravate face-threats
in mediated disputes. Contextualization cues are defined by this author as “any feature
of linguistic form that contributes to the signalling of contextual presuppositions” (p.
This does not, in anyway, exchrde die possibrhtyof Marco being honest. He n r i^ b e , but stilt he is
constructing an excuse.
80
131). Thus contextualization cues function as framing devices, helping interactants and
analysts alike to understand the interactional ongoing process of meaning construction.
In my data, I found 6 features which signal the directness and aggressiveness in the use
of complaints as face-work.
Unhesitating introduction
Disputants usually introduce complaints without delays, that is, with no signal of
hesitation, like long pauses or vowel alongation. On the contrary, complaints usually
latch on to the mediator’s eliciting utterances, as the next example illustrates:
DS12
49 SW":
— > 50 Laura:
51 SW":
52 Laura:
podefalar=
=e ele fica muito agj-essivo quando ele bebe. e male-, e sem bebida ele é malcriado
também (.) sabe,=
=arram=
=ele tem uma boca muito tsuia. (.) e tudo quanto é palavrão ele diz. (.) el- não pode
Unhesitating introduction is also signalled by fast talk:
->
DS4
18 Jane:
=todo ele (.) ele manda. >tessepequeninhocham aeude tvaca, de tégua, de tputa,
de galinha, de tudo quanto é coisa,<
((pause))
The following excerpt from Paulo’s turn is a counter-example of unhesitating
introduction. It shows that not going strictly to the point when complaining is not the
preferred action in this setting. The mediator has already exposed her view regarding the
marital conflict and elected Soraia, Paulo’s wife, as the victim. Paulo, however
introduces a counter-complaint in an attempt to keep his face by promoting a
redefinition of the situation:
— >
DSll
2 Paulo:
3
Paulo:
4
Soraia:
eu não quero isso mas tem a tem tem alguns pontos também eRRAdos né,
((pause))
também,
((pause))
tfala.
((pause))
81
->■ 5
Paulo:
tem muitas coisas erradas também né (.) que eu que eu acho também né mas (.) às
vezes eu também não posso falar né,
6
-> 7
SW":
Paulo:
0 que que 0 senhor acha,=
8
9
SW":
Paulo:
(.)
10 Soraia:
11 SW":
->• 12 Paulo:
13 SW":
14 Soraia:
=tnão, (porque) às vezes certas coisas eu também não posso falar né, então eu às
vezes fico quieto né,=
=tcom o que o senhor não pode falar, não- não entendi o que o senhor quer [dizer]
[tem]
muitas tem muitas coisas erradas (.) também.
((pause))
fala,
((pause))
0 que, coisa do lado tdela, etrrada,
((pause))
é muitas coisas [que::]
[entãol (vamos lá) [agora é a oportunidade pra vocês conversarem,]
[(tfala é (.) o negócio errado] (
)
(.)
15 SW":
0 que que tem errado,
16 SW":
17 Soraia:
agora vocês tão aqui [pra convertsar} pra se ententder,
[(
)]
18 Paulo:
é que eu levo (.) quer dizer
((pause))
quer dizer EU que levo (.) como diz o outro (.) eu levo tudo porque né, eu sou
homem isso e aquilo né, (.) [mas]
[(
)]
=e- eu tacho que tem (.) tem muitas coisas erradas também que tem que corrigir, ela
também tem que se corrigir. né,=
(.)
(.)
19 Paulo:
20 Soraia:
- > 2 1 Paulo:
The way Paulo introduces the complaint is quite atypical in CSs. Contrary to what
usually happens, he delays the introduction of what exactly he will complain about. This
leads the mediator to explicitly ask him to elaborate on what he thinks Soraia has to
change:
D S ll
- > 22 SW":
23 Paulo:
- > 24 SW":
25 Paulo:
- > 26 Paulo:
* > 27 Paulo:
28 SW":
=0 [QUE] por exemplo (.) [não] muitas coisas (.) DIZ o que que é.
[e::]
[é:::]
((pause))
o que que ela tem [que corrigir]
[por exemplo,]
((pause))
por exemplo, certas coisas de de de:::
((pause))
de religião.
(.)
tun
As the continuation of the segment shows, Paulo still does not elaborate on
Soraia’s wrongdoing, which leads the mediator to explicitly orient to it again:
82
DSll
29 Paulo:
uma coisa que:: eu eu já já já (
) (época) de religião eu me separei do
meu do meu primeiro casamento eu me separei por causa de religião.
(.)
30 SW":
um,
(.)
- > 3 1 SW":
por causa de que, o que que a sua mulher fazia,
(.)
32 Paulo:
tnão é que, só queria saber de religião.
(.)
33 SW":
34 Paulo:
e ela, o que [quel ela faz,
[e::]
Unlimited depth o f penetration
Linell and Bredmar (1996) show that when a sensitive topic is approached slowly,
gradually, that is, with signals o f hesitation, the degree of penetration in the topic is also
often limited, and interactants soon start retreating. In the case of the data under analysis
here, what happens is quite the opposite. Disputants do not hesitate in approaching
delicate topics (the mediator does), nor is the degree of penetration limited. On the
contrary, disputants give detailings about the matters they talk about. There is an
example o f this, in an exchange among Rafael, SW^ and Jane (who is not a current
speaker at the moment). Note how Rafael gives details of the topic being discussed:
DS5
114 Rafael: =eu tenho um terreno nas Potecas que eu comprei, da mãe dela, pergunta se eu não
comprei (.) b at rato mas eu p at guei.=
115 SW':
=um,
(.)
116 Rafael: foi feito lun: lá lun acordo (.) quando fizeram (.) ó, quer ver,
(.)
117 SW':
um,=
118 Rafael: =íizemos assim 10 filhos (.) tinha 250 metros de terreno (.) então foi tocado 20
metros e 50 pra cada um (.) PRA CADA UM pagar um- um- um- irnia- uma
proporção pra velha fazer (.) fazer uma poupança, que ela não queria vender pra um
estranho (.) todo mundo topou, só (t-) UM OU DOIS PAGOU e o resto não
pagaram, mas eu paguei, (.) aquele pouco, mas eu patguei. (.) já (descob-) já tou
descotbrindo, (.) >que ela botou no nome da irmã pra pagar imposto e tudo pra (me
cómer até) o terreno<=
In the next segment, now it is Jane who gives details about a scene o f violence
that happened at home;
83
DS 4
34 Jane:
=eu não terminei ainda (.) aí eu passei lhe a mão ele pegou, na-naquele meio tempo
que eu consegui ele veio em cima de mim. (.) aí ele me deu um soco, me deu um
soco. aí eu peguei dei lhe um empurrão assim contra ele con- {{indicates location
-with gestures)) a mesa é aqui, a geladeira aqui, tem um (fogãozinho aqui), eu peguei
dei lhe um empurrão, ele foi ali, no coisa ali, (.) assim atrás da mesa, eu >quería< (.)
dar uma chapada nele naquela hora, aí ele (.) t ( ( (se os gurizão todos querem
Çíy
The literature on face-work has referred to laughter and jokes (Aronsson &
Rundstrom, 1989; Beck & Ragan, 1992) as strategies which serve to alleviate facethreats. In my data^ I found occurrences in which a crying tone is used to aggravate the
impropriety o f conduct. Let us look at Laura’s use of this strategy;
DS 12
69 Laura:
— > 70 Laura:
71
72
73
74
75
Marco:
Marco:
Laura:
Marco:
Laura:
as minhas filhas 12 anos, 11 anos, começaram a trabalhar no fogão dos toutros,
((pause))
{{all utterance in crying tone)) pra sustentar a çasa porque ele
trabalhava [uma seTmana não trabalhava mais] (.) ficava na preguiça.=
[°ã (
), que tá chorando,“]
=(por) [que tá chorando mulher?]
[a (vida inteira) pra ele] arrumar [ou]tro serviço a gente tinha que briTgar=
^ [o:::,]
=com ele, senão a gente passava miSÉria.
Notice that the way Laura utters her words provokes Marco’s immediate reaction.
The overlaps seem to signal his objection to the way she is putting things. Besides, the
overlaps occur exactly after Laura’s crying utterance.
Repetition of the kev idea
Generally there is some core information which guides the complaining activity
and which the complainant utters in very similar wordings now and then in her/his turn.
The arrowed lines in the three next excerpts exemplify this;
— >
D S12
8 Laura:
9 Marco:
ah elebebe, que ele é mal-muito mal criado, tudo quan[to] é nome ele diz (.) ele=
[não,]
84
Moments later:
D S 12
52 Laura:
=ele tem uma boca muito Tsuia. (.) e tudo quanto é palavrão ele diz. (.) el- não pode
ir uma, uma ami- a minha irmã vai lá (.) foi lá Natal (.) dar um parabéns pra mim dar
um abraço de:^ de Natal, as mi- as minhas sobrinhas, (.) ele tbebe ele bota eles a
correr. (.) meu filho de Blxnnenau chegou, a minha nora chegou a sair (.) choTrando.
((pause))
Moments later:
DS 12
80 Laura:
tudo (que) é palavrão éle dizia (.) [é um boca suja]
Repetitions seem to highlight the core of the complaint narratives. In the
sequences that follow the two last excerpts above, the mediator reveals her interest on
the subject o f drinking which might have been influenced by Laura’s emphasis on the
issue. Let us take a look at the way this happens:
D S 12
52 Laura:
53 Laura:
54 (SW"):
55 Laura:
— >
56 SW":
=ele tem uma boca muito Tsuia. (.) e tudo quanto é palavrão ele diz. (.) el- não pode
ir uma, uma ami- a minlia irmã vai lá (.) foi lá Natal (.) dar um parabéns pra mim dar
um abraço de:, de Natal, as mi- as minhas sobrinhas, (.) ele t ^ b e ele bota eles a
correr. (.) meu filho de Blumenau chegou, a minha nora chegou a sair (.) choTrando.
((pause))
por causa dele, que ele entrou bêbado, ele agora a gente mora (parede e meia) com o
vizinho né [( ]
)=
[ahé]
=minha prima (.) eles se desentenderam ele e o homem né, (.) e agora por causa
disso ele bebe ele cham- só chama o homem de vagabundo, (.) fica falando do
homem na vizinhança. =
=e faz tempo ( ) faz::: bastante tempo, que ele bebe?
Moments later:
DS 12
80 Laura:
81 SW":
tudo (que) é palavrão ele dizia (.) [é um boca suja]
[e:: ele nunca fez ã::], mmca fez imi tratamento
dona Laura, pra=
Strong expressions
Foul language is usually used by the current speaker to animate the defendant’s
past words. In the following example, Jane animates Rafael using offensive words to
85
refer to her. The change in footing (Goffman, 1981) is marked by the change in the tone
of voice:
— >
DS4
16 Jane:
T((tnao (,)>vocês não tão vendo que não se fala com é< com essa sem vergonha,
com essa vagabunda. (.)>que isso aí não sei o que, isso aí não sei,< (.) >isso aí nem
nem é mulher pra tá mais dentro aqui, dentro de casa,< (.) >se (tu) bobear eu (tento
por) ela na rua.<))>l-
In the next excerpt, Laura uses foul language when telling the mediator about an
event in which her husband misbehaved. This is also an example of the attribution of
offensive wordings to the defendant:
DS 1 2
89 Laura:
90 SW":
91 Laura:
92 Marco:
93 SW":
— > 94 Laura:
=ele diz que [tá bêbado (quando)] quer, mas sempre ele tá >bêbado<. sábado=
[fica bêbado,]
ainda [ele] chegou bêbado=
[tsi]
=a[rram]
[ainlda chegou bêbado eu tinha fechado a porta da: (.) sala né, (.) que o: rapaz
tava dormindo no sofá, ele chegou bêbado, o filhinho do lado tava na frente tdeles
eles tinham chegado da procissão tavam convertsando. (.) ele abriu a porta sentou
no paredão da porta, (.) aí como chamou a guria de (,)t((essa guria aí é uma
tp u ta))i ele assim,
(•)
95 Marco:
96 Laura:
tã! tã! não falei [nada!]
[diss]esse,=
In this last segment, the husband reacts to the words Laura puts in his mouth,
showing that being depicted as a person who uses foul language in a situation as the one
Laura describes might be face-threatening.
Flow of speech
Rather than being monotonous, the flow of speech of disputants’ complaints is
marked by constant shifts in intonation, in volume and in speed. These resources seem
to fonction in a way to highlight information that strengths the reprehensibility o f the
conduct being described. This is illustrated in the two excerpts below:
86
DS12
52 Laura:
DS12
73 Laura:
74 Marco:
75 Laura:
=ele tem uma boca muito tsuia. (.) e tudo quanto é palavrão ele diz. (.) el- não pode
ir uma, uma ami- a minha irmã vai lá (.) foi lá Natal (.) dar um parabéns pra mim dar
um abraço de:, de Natal, as mi- as minhas sobrinhas, (.) ele tte b e ele bota eles a
correr. (.) meu filho de Blumenau chegou, a minha nora chegou a sair (.) choTrando.
((pause))
[a (vida inteira) pra elel arrumar [oultro serviço a gente tinha que britgar=
[o:::,]
=com ele, senão a gente passava miSÉria.
The description of the features of the aggressive use of face-work showed that the
more aggravated the complaints the more they are appropriate as regards the
interactional order of mediated disputes in counseling interaction. Complaints in CSs
seem to privilege the use of extreme case formulations (Pomerantz, 1986), as
participants use language resources to aggravate the reprehensibility of conduct. Like in
the complaint sequences studied by Drew (1998), the complainants in the counseling
interactions studied often use to extremely formulate a case by portraying the other’s
misconduct as being deliberate.
Drew’s (1998) study shows how people are selective in accounting for their own
and others’ conduct in telephone conversations. Whereas in accounting for themselves
people assume a defensive position, that is, they mitigate what could possibly be
considered a fault on their part, when accounting for others’ behavior in activities such
as making complaints, participants overtly formulate the transgression. Drew (1998)
suggests that complaining about transgressions of behavior to a third party, that is, to a
person that is not the complainable, is related to moral work, which
consists o f activities such as describing another’s conduct as manifestly having
been at fault, condemning that person for his or her behavior, expressing
indignation about their behavior or treatment, and seeking the recipient’s support
for and affiliation with that sense of indignation with the “wrongness” o f the
other’s conduct, (p. 312)
87
Drew argues that conduct in itself is neither reprehensible nor praiseworthy.
Rather, it is the language resources we use to describe it that creates it in one fashion or
another and thus makes of morality an implicit or explicit concern of participants. In
counseling interaction, not only do the participants complain about the other to a third
party, but the other is also present, witnessing her/his own self to be scrutinized and
evaluated. Face-work in counseling session is thus a kind of moral work.
The present chapter attempted to demonstrate that the face relationships
participants establish among themselves in the mediated disputes/cross-examination
studied are quite diverse. Whereas the mediator’s face is never explicitly at risk, the co­
disputants’ faces constantly are. Besides, whereas the mediator uses strategies o f
indirectness to mitigate face-threats, co-disputants use strategies to aggravate threats,
which are introduced through complaints. Complaints thus serve as both a facethreatening and a face-keeping device— an aggressive use of face-work. In addition,
threats to face seem to be related to elements of identity which relate to one’s own self.
For example, being a person who is projected as being generally righteous, a potential
victim, and a complainant in the ongoing talk is face-enhancing. The opposite identity
relation—being portrayed as a transgressive person, a potential culprit, a defendant in
the immediate talk is face-threatening. In addition, the mediation organization o f the
CSs under study does provide for ongoing speakers to feel secure and attached to their
current face claims. Finally, in complaining, the participants corroborate the rules o f
conduct of counseling interaction, that is, they follow the institutionalized etiquette
conducting themselves in appropriate ways. However, in aggravating complaints, they
make of face-work a kind of moral work (Drew, 1998).
88
In the next chapter, I conclude the present thesis. First, I present a summary o f
what I have done from chapter 2 up to chapter 5. After this, I make some remarks about
my findings. I then move on to make some considerations as regards the methods o f
research I have used to deal with my data. As a closing point, I discuss the limitations
and implications of the present study, making suggestions for fiirther research.
CHAPTER 6
FINAL REMARKS
“Allpeople define situations as real; but when powerful people
define situations as real, then they are real for everybody involved
in their consequences”. (Mehan, 1990, p. 160)
6.1. Summary
This thesis investigated naturally occurring counseling interactions in which, as I
have showed, a couple with marital problems and a social worker meet to evaluate social
conduct and to establish ways to solve the couple’s conflict.
Initially, I outlined the basic assumptions of the interactional sociolinguistic
approach to the study of talk which grounds this study. These assumptions concern the
co-constructive and situated nature regarding the use o f language in social interaction.
Next, I presented the features o f institutional forms of talk as described by Drew and
Heritage (1992). After this, I discussed Goflfman’s conceptualization of face and facework, showing how the study o f these phenomena is related to the study of morality and
discourse (Bergmann, 1998; Linell & Bredmar, 1996).
Then I moved on to the description of the setting in which I carried out
fieldwork, following a microethnographic standpoint (Erickson & Shultz, 1981;
Erickson, 1992). Firstly, I gave a brief historical account of the Women’s PoHce Station
(WPS). I then described the steps a couple follows before engaging in the social
encounters I studied. I also gave a description of the task agenda of the counseling for
couples at the WPS in Florianópolis. After introducing the participants, I proceeded to
give an account o f the way I negotiated entry in the field, collected data and limited my
scope o f analysis and made adjustments to the data.
90
I then moved on to the description of the four major speech activities (Gumperz,
1982) of the event; mechanics talk, problem talk, advice talk and agreement talk. The
theoretical tool I used to segment the activities was Goodwin’s (1990) notion o f
participant framework. Through the description of the social organization of talk, I could
recognize the main achievements of the participants in each of the activities. During
mechanics talk, the interactional order of the unfolding dispute is established. In problem
talk, the participants diagnose the problem as well as establish who the victim is. Advice
talk is the activity in which the culprit party is advised to change conduct and in which
proposals for change are discussed. In agreement talk, the agreed proposal is formalized
both verbally and in an official police document. As the achievements of problem talk
proved to be central to the accomplishments of the subsequent activities, I discussed this
activity in a more detailed way. I thus found out that this activity is usually characterized
by two participant frameworks; mediated dispute and direct dispute. In addition, both
participant frameworks point to a hidden speech activity; cross-examination. By
analyzing a discrepant case, I showed then that husband and wife only align as disputants
when there is lack of consensus regarding the identification of the problem and the
establishment of the victim. In CSs, disputes—^which are triggered by complaints— are
thus the means for participants to establish an interactional “operational consensus”
(Goffman, 1959, p. 10), that is, a common definition of the roles interactants are playing
and the rights they have within the unfolding interaction. Finally, I showed that the
findings of the present study corroborate a view of identity in interaction as a local
achievement (Aronsson, 1998), showing that, as they pursue institutional goals, the
participants of the counseling sessions studied may subvert given positions through talk.
The subsequent step in this study was to describe the way the participants carried
out face-work in mediated dispute/cross-examination. Taking into account previous
91
studies on the relation between mediation and face, I discussed the face-relationships the
mediation procedures provide for participants of counseling interaction. I found out that,
even though these procedures prevent participants from losing face, they do not protect
them from face-threats. As I identified complaints as actions used by co-disputants to
threaten the other’s and to enhance one’s own face, I provided a closer examination of
complaints as an aggressive use of face-work. For this, I applied Gumperz’s (1982)
notion of contextualization cues. I then found out that aggravating face-threats is the
preferred conduct in the ritual code of mediated disputes/cross-examination. However,
aggravation of threats brings into scene a moral dimension of language use— face-work
becomes moral work (Drew, 1998). In the counseling sessions I studied, the nearer a
disputant is to projections of a righteous and victimized self, the more her/his face is
enhanced. Interestingly, the more a disputant’s face is enhanced, the nearer s/he is to a
righteous and victimized self
6.2. Remarks on findings
This study emphasized the centrality of identity constructs for the activities o f the
participants o f counseling interaction. As I showed, at the very moment they engage in
talk, the couple and the social worker usually start a process of defining whose claims for
the victim-role will be honored and who will be the culprit. This way, the wife and the
husband initiate a combat of selves, in which they dispute for the victim position. The
social worker takes on the roles o f mediator and judge, as she has to decide who the real
victim is. In searching for the victim and in claiming for this role, the participants do not
acknowledge that identity is co-constructed in situ—the victim and the culprit are locally
defined. As GofBnan (1959) says
92
a status, a position, a social place is not a material thing, to be possessed and then
displayed; it is a pattern of appropriate conduct, coherent, embellished, and well
articulated. Performed with ease or clumsiness, awareness or not, gUile or good
faith, it is none the less something that must be enacted and portrayed, something
that must be realized, (p. 75)
Therefore, the first requirement for a person to project him/herself as a victim is
having the social competence to perform this social identity. In counseling interaction,
the stance (Ochs, 1993) o f victimization seems to be linked to the act of complaining.
Any social actor can thus claim to be the victim; however, some are more socially skilled
to win a battle of complaints than others.
6.3. Research methods: The ethics of my work
Throughout my research production, what worried me the most was the fact that
I was researching real people in the world. If, on the one hand, this was the main reason
that raised my interest in this study—understanding how people inter-act and co­
construct doings— on the other hand, this became an issue for me: in portraying people’s
actions, I did not want to cause any harm to their image. I soon found out that following
microethnographic research methods (Erickson & Shultz, 1981; Erickson, 1992) was a
way o f overcoming this issue in coherent and responsible ways. Thus, fi-om approaching
the field to the written report, my choices (of theoretical apparatus, of methodological
procedures) were guided by an attempt to paint a reliable picture of the scene I dealt
with so closely.
But how do we define among many choices the ones that would lead us to such a
reliable picture? What is being reliable? Is it being objective? No, in no way am I saying
that my choices did not have the interference of my own point of view. As Buttny (1993)
points out in his critique to CA’s objectivity.
93
in doing social research constructions are unavoidable because the selection o f
terms with which to identify, observe and describe phenomena are already
theoretical commitments. We cannot describe human action and interaction in a
theory-neutral way. (p. 47)
Thus, the interpretation I constructed for the scenes I observed is only one
interpretation among possible others. In spite of this, it is grounded on an attempt to
approximate an emic perspective, that is, an insider’s point o f view.^* Therefore, it is not
that I interpreted interaction following intuition. On the contrary, articulating what
participants were doing together was a task accomplished through careful examination o f
recordings and fieldnotes. However, even though I aimed at understanding participants’
point o f view, I did not neglect the fact that as the analyst, I would never be the other.
This is the big issue microethnographic oriented descriptions of interaction own to
anthropological studies: the impossibility of being a hundred percent emic and the quasiimminence of facing the phantom o f ethnocentrism.^^
6.4. Limitations and implications of this thesis
The greatest limitations o f the present study are related to the methodological
procedures. First of all, as I used audio-record instead of video-recordings, I did not
have access to the nonverbal behavior of the participants, which is a fondamental aspect
of interaction. Besides, I would have profited from interviewing the couples, because this
would provide me with valuable information that could help me in the construction o f an
emic perspective.
In Pike’s (1971, p. 37, cited in Dnrantr, 1997, p. 172) words: “the eticviewpoiirt studies behavior
from outside of a particular system, and as an essential initial approach to an alien system. The emic
viewpoint results from studying behavior as from inside the system”;
Cavalcanti (1991), for instance, discusses the issue of ethnocentrism in Guarani and non-Guarani
interaction in Brazil.
94
Despite these and other limitations that may possibly be recognized, I believe this
work has its strengths. One of them, is the construction of counseling sessions for
couples at the Women’s Police Station as an object of study for the research in talk-ininteraction. An interesting point to be investigated is how face-work is done and facerelationships established in the other speech activities of the event. It would also be
interesting to study in more detail the features of direct disputes in counseling
interaction. This can certainly shed some light on the debate about institutional and
ordinary features of talk.
From an interdisciplinary standpoint, I expect that this thesis can contribute to
fields interested in issues of marital violence. Counseling sessions for couples are an
extension o f the scenes of violence which, unfortunately, constantly occur in Brazilian
families (Camargo, 1991; Gregori, 1992; Izumino, 1998; Thomas, 1994). These social
encounters may thus be considered an instance in the marital war which is part o f what
anthropological oriented studies (Grossi, 1998, p. 304) have called the violence cycle.
The present work is revealing as regards the victimization process which is constitutive
of the violence cycle. By showing that women are not the only ones to construct
themselves as victims in the discourse of violence—men are likely to do the same— I
■provide some evidence that victimization is not a gendered pattern of behavior, as
previous studies in social sciences (Gregori, 1992) have suggested.
Finally, if the key to misunderstandings between men and women is conflict, as
Cameron (1998) says, I argue that the key to solve misunderstandings is avoiding
conflict. As I have shown through a detailed analysis of talk, complaints are the kind o f
verbal activity which strengthens opposition between people. Thus, breaking such
interactional patterns of communication, one might contribute for dialogue to begin
replacing violence. We have to acknowledge, however, that acts of violence may be
95
understood as ways to communicate (Grossi, 1998), and people may get into complaints,
because, after all, this is a way to relate, and conflict is definitly not easy to avoid.
REFERENCES
Aronsson, K. (1998). Identity-in-interaction and social choreograj)hy. Research on
Language and Social Interaction. 3 U 1). 75-89.
Aronsson, K., & Rundstrom, B. (1989). Cats, dogs, and sweets in the clinical negotiation
o f reality; On politeness and coherence in pedriatic discourse. Language in Society.
18, (483-504).
Beck, C. S., & Ragan, S. L. (1992). Negotiating interpersonal and medical talk; Frame
shifts in the ^naecolqgic exam. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 11
(47-61).
Bergman, J. (1998). Introduction; Morality in discourse. Research on Language and
Social Interaction. 3U 3& 4I 279-294.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness; Some universais of language use.
Cambridge; Cambridge University Press.
Buttny, R. (1993). Social accountability in communication. London; Sage.
Buttny, R. (1998). Putting prior talk into context; Reported speech and the reporting
context. Research on Language and Social Interaction. 31(1). 45-58.
Buttny, R. (1996). Clients’ and therapist’s joint construction of the clients’ problems.
Research on Language and Social Interaction. 29(2). 125-153.
Cavalcanti, M. (1991). Interação guarani/não-guarani; Etnocentrismo naturalizado na
questão do silêncio inter-tumos. Trabalhos em Lingüística Aplicada. 18. 101-110.
Camargo, B. V., Coutinho, M. & Dagostin, C. G. (1991). Violência denunciada contra a
mulher; A visibilidade via delegacia da mulher de Florianópolis. Caderno de
Pesquisa. (78), 51-57.
97
Cameron, D. (1998). ‘Is there any ketchup, Vera?’; Gender, power and pragmatics.
Discourse & Society. 9(41 437-455.
Cupach, W., & Metts, S. (1994) Facework. Thousand Oaks; Sage.
Da Matta, R. (1997). Relatiyizando: Uma introdução à antropologia social. Rio de
Janeiro: Rocco.
Drew, P. (1992). Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: The case o f a trial
for rape. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds ), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional
settings, (pp. 470-520). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Drew, P. (1998). Complaints about transgressions and misconduct. Research on
Language and Social Interaction. 3K 3&4), 295-325.
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.) (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dornelles, C. (1997). A influência das revistas femininas na formação da identidade da
mulher. Revista Intercâmbio. 6. ('pp774-92').
Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellen, R. F. (1984). Introduction. In R. F. Ellen (Ed ), Ethnographic research: A guide to
general conduct (pp. 1-12). London: Academic Press.
Ellmann, R. (1988). Oscar Wilde. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras.
Erickson, F,, & Shultz, J. (1981). When is a context? Some issues and methods in the
analysis o f social competence. In J. L. Green & C. Wallat (Eds.), Ethnography and
language in educational settings (pp. 147-160). Norwood: Ablex.
Erickson. F.. & Schultz. J. (1982). The counselor as gatekeeper: Social interaction in
interviews. New York: Academic Press.
98
Erickson, F. (1992). Ethnographic microanalysis of interaction. InM . D. LeCompte, W:
L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education
(pp. 201-225). New york: Academic Press.
Fernandes, C. (1999). O coronel e o lobisomen: Uma abordagem sócio-interacional. São
Paulo: AnnaBlume.
Garcez, P. M. (1991). Conflicting conversational styles in a cross-cultural business
negotiation. Unpublished master’s thesis. Federal University of Santa Catarina,
Florianópolis, Brazil.
Garcez, P. M. (1996). Brazilian manufacturers and U.S. importers doing business: The
co-construction of arguing sequences in negotiation. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation.
University o f Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
Garcez, P. M. (1997). Microethnography. In D. Carson, & N. H. Hornberger (Eds ), The
encvclopedia of language and education vol. 8. Research methods in language and
education (pp. 187-196). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer.
Garcia, A. (1991). Dispute resolution without disputing: How the interactional
organization of mediation hearings minimizes argumentative talk. American
Sociological Review. 56. (pp. 818-835).
Gianetti, E. (1998). Auto-engano. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras.
Gofftnan, E. (1959). The presentation of self in evervdav life. New York: Doubleday.
Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of
gatherings. New York: Free Press.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York:
Pantheon Books.
Goffinan, E. (1972). The neglected situation. In P. P. Giglioli (Ed.), Language and Social
Context (pp. 61-66). Middlesex, UK: Penguin.
99
Goffman, E. (1981). Footing. In E. Goflftnan (Ed.), Forms of talk (pp. 124-159).
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goflßnan, E. (1986). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston:
Northeastern University Press.
Goffman, E. (1997). The interaction order. In C. Lemert & A. Branaman (Eds.), The
Goffman reader (pp. 233-261). Oxford; Blackwell.
Goodwin, M. (1990). He-said-she-said; Talk as social organization among black
children. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Goodwin, C., & Duranti, A. (1992). Rethinking context: An introduction. In A. Duranti
& C. Goodwin (Eds.). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon
(pp. 1-42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gregori, M. F. (1992). Cenas e queixas: Um estudo sobre mulheres, relações violentas e a
prática feminista. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.
Grossen, M., & Orvig, S. (1998). Clinical interviews as verbal interactions: A
multidisciplinary outlook. Introduction. Pragmatics. 8(21 149-154.
Grossi, M. (1998). Rimando amor com dor: Reflexões sobre a violência no vinculo
afetivo conjugal. In J. M. Pedro & M. P. Grossi (Orgs.), Masculino, feminino, plural:
Gênero na interdisciplinaridade (293-313). Florianópolis: Mulheres.
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, J. J., & Cook-Gumperz, J. (1982). Introduction: Language and the
communication of social identity. In J. J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social
identity (pp. 1-21). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holtgräves, T. (1992). The linguistic realization of face management: Implications for
language production and comprehension, person perception, and cross-cultural
communication. Social Psychological Bulletin. 55. 141-159.
100
Holy, L. (1984). Theory, methodology and the research process. In R. F. Ellen (Ed.),
Ethnographic research: A guide to general conduct (13-34). London: Academic
Press.
Izumino, W. P. (1998). Justica e violência contra a mulher: O papel do sistema judiciário
na solução dos conflitos de gênero. São Paulo: Annablume.
Jacoby, S., & Ochs, E. (1995). Co-construction: An introduction. Research on Language
and Social Interaction. 28(3), 171-183.
Jefferson, G. (1984). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately
next-positioned matters. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures o f social
action, (pp. 191-222). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jefferson, G. (1984). Transcript notation. In J. M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds ),
Structures o f social action (pp. ix-xvi). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jefferson, G. (1985). An exercise in the transcription and analysis of laughter. In T. A.
van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook o f discourse analysis (Vol. 3, pp. 25-34). New York;
Academic.
Jefferson, G., & Lee, (1992). The rejection of advice: Managing the problematic
convergence of a “troubles-telling” and a “service encounter”. In P. Drew & J.
Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings, (pp. 521-548).
Labov, W., & Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic discourse. New York: Academic Press.
Laplantine, F. (1997). Aprender antropologia. São Paulo: Editora Brasiliense.
Lemert, C., & Branaman, A. (Eds.) (1997). The Gof&nan reader. Oxford: Blackwell.
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Linell, P., & Rommetveit, R. (1998). The many forms and facets of morality in dialogue:
Epilogue for the special issue. Research on Language and Social Interaction.
3i(3&4), 465-473.
101
Linell, P., & Bredmar, M. (1996). Reconstructing topical sensivity: Aspects of face-work
in talks between midwives and expectant mothers. Research on Language and Social
Interaction. 29(4). 347-379,
Lispector, C. (1999). Para nao esquecer. Rio de Janeiro; Rocco.
Mehan, H. (1990). Oracular reasoning in a psychiatric exam: The resolution of conflict in
language. In A. Grimshaw (Ed ), Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of
arguments in conversations (pp. 160-177). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mondada, L. (1998). Therapy interactions: Specific genre or “blown up” versions of
ordinary conversational practices? Pragmatics. 8(2). 155-165.
Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. In E. Ochs & B. Schiefifelin (Eds.),
Developmental pragmatics, (pp. 43-72). New York: Academic Press.
Ochs, E. (1993). Constructing social identity: A language socialization perspective.
Research on Language and Social Interaction. 26(3). 287-306.
O’Connor, M. & Michaels, S. (1996). Shifting participants frameworks: Orchestrating
thinking practices in group discussion. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning and
schooling. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pike/duranti
Pomerantz, A. (1978). Attributions o f responsibility: Blamings. Sociology, 12, 116-121.
Pomerantz, A. (1984a). Giving a source or basis: The practice in conversation of telling
‘how I know’. Journal of Pragmatics. 8. 607-625.
Pomerantz, A. (1984b). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of
preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds ), Structures
of social action, (pp. 57-101). Cambridge: Cambridge Universitv Press.
Pomerantz, A. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human
Studies. 9. 219-229.
102
Preti, D. (1996). Problems with the representation of face and its manifestations in the
discourse of the ‘old-old’. In C. R. Caldas-Coulthard (Ed.), Texts and practices:
Readings in critical discourse analysis, (pp. 194-213). London: Routledge.
Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematic for the
organization o f tum-taking for conversation. Language. 50. 696-735.
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in
the organization o f repair tn conversation. Language. 53(2). 361-383.
Santos, L. (1997). Reconhecimento da instituição. Departamento de Serviço Social:
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina.
Saussure, F. (1959). Course in general linguistics. Londres: Peter Owen.
Schiffrin, D. (1994). Interactional sociolinguistics. Approaches to discourse. Oxford and
Cambridge: Blackwell.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (1995). Intercultural communication. Oxford and
Cambridge: Blackwell.
Thomas, D. Q. (1994). In search of solutions: Women’s police stations in Brazil. In M.
Davies (Ed ), Women and violence (pp. 32-43). London: Zed Books.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Face and facework: An introduction. In S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.),
The challenge o f facework (pp. 1-14). New York; State University ofN ew York
Press.
Ting-Toomey, S., & Cocroft, B-A (1994). Face and facework; Theoretical and research
issues. In S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The challenge of facework (pp. 307-340). New
York; State University of New York Press.
103
Tracy, K., & Baratz, S. (1994). The case for case studies of facework. In S. Ting-Toomey
(Ed.), The challenge of facework (pp. 287-305). New York; State University of New
York Press.
Volkema, R. (1988). The mediator as face manager. Mediation Ouarterlv.22. 5-14.
Vuchinich, S. (1990). The sequential organization of closing in verbal family conflict. In
A. Grimshaw (Ed ), Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in
conversations (pp. 118-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
APPENDIX A
TRANSCRIPTIONS (DATA SEGMENTS 1-14)
COUPLE I: Lia & Jonas. Marta as social worker: Febaiarv. 19. 1998. 22 minutes
DATA SEGMENT 1
1
SW':
{{reading o f the record))
2
SW';
3
Lia;
((pause))
isso (.) aconteceu (.) em deTzembro,
((pause))
foi a época que a gente estava,
4
5
6
7
8
9
Lia:
SW':
Jonas:
SW':
Jonas:
Lia;
(.)
10 SW':
11 Lia:
[brigados]
[separados]
[conflito] interno é,=
=é. e vocês já reataram,=
=[já]
=üá.]
((pause))
e como [é que]
[a gente se] separou, (.) judicialmente (.) legalmente
(.)
12 SW':
13 Lia:
14
15
16
17
18
SW':
Lia:
Jonas:
SW':
Lia:
19 Jonas:
20 Lia:
21 SW':
[ã,]
[a] gente tá separado.
((pause))
legalmente,=
=é. e agora (estamos)=
=vivendo [juntos]
[es]tão amazeados [agora]
[a gente] tá tentando (.) é (.) tá
tentando [vê se;;:]=
[tá tentando reconciliação]
=dá [pra reconciliação]
[é::]
DATA SEGMENT 2
1
2
Lia;
SW':
3
SW':
4
SW':
5
SW':
6
SW':
7
SW':
pois é, mas que tipo de: ajuda vocês oferecem,=
=orientação, (.) pro casal né, a gente- como- (.) vocês vieram hoje. a gente vai
discutir 0 objeto problema de vocês, saber o que é que tá incomotdando, pra poder
buscar a solução junto, apontar, não dizer o que vocês devem fazer, mas m-clarear
pra vocês, o que que tá incomodando,=
={{trimm))=
=0 mais profundo, o objeto, PRINcipal do problema, porque o resto=
=[são conseqüências,]
[{{trimm))]
(.)
né, (.) então a gente vai clarear e mostrar imia solução,=
={{trimm))=
=como vi- viver sem violência (.) dá pra viver sem violência,=
={{trimm))=
=conversando.
(.)
tá difícil agora (só um instante) dá licença,
{{SW answers the phone; after this Lia takes the turn))
105
8
Lia:
9 SW‘;
10 Lia;
11 Jonas:
12 SW':
té porque: o nosso problema maior é con- nós temos conflito, é muito conflito, sabe
(.) é, (
) a menina né, ela tem::, problemas::, que. antes (dele passar) ele foi
um pai muito agressivo né, >° batia muito °< ela ficou muito,=
=traumatizada=
=é. então TODO TODO o motivo do que acontece o que acontece t((É o pai,
[É 0 pai, É 0 pai,] É o pai)),i então ficou aquela COIsa assim, né,=
[t((>É 0 pai, É o pai, É o pai<))i]
=arram.
(.)
13
14
15
16
SW':
Lia;
SW:
Lia:
[mas::,]
[>então ficou uma] reVOLTA muito grande<=
=iuna rejeição,=
=é. agora ela tá melhor sabe, mas mesmo assim ás vezes ela, t((eu odeio o pai, eu
odeio)), i mas no fundo ela não o t deia
17
18
19
20
21
22
Jonas;
SW';
Lia:
SW':
Lia;
SW';
ela gosta. =
=no fundo [ela]=
[ela]
=quer [né,]=
[ela quer,] ela [quer,]
[>é lógico que quer,<] mas isso vocês tem que fazer uma
terapia de família,
23
24
25
26
Lia:
SW:
Lia:
Lia:
por iss[o]
[o] senhor e tela precisam [fazer, pra ter] uma reaproximação=
[>por isso que eu queria sab-<]
=e aonde que faz isso,
(.)
(■)
(.)
27 Lia:
tcomo a gente faz isso,
((Fo/- 54 seconds, they talk about the location o f places specialized in fam ily
therapy; S W is making a phone call when Jonas says the following))
28 Jonas:
é, o maior problema nosso é assim conflito muitas vezes com, com a filha, ela é
meio difícil
29 Jonas:
30 Lia:
né,=
=urrum
(.)
COUPLE II: Jane & Rafael Marta as social worker. March. 12, 1998, lhour: 10
minutes
DATA SEGMENT 3
1
Jane:
2
SW‘:
3
4
Jane:
Jane;
5
SW':
Jane:
=aí ele não quer saber de (
) com a minha família, não quer saber da minha
mãe ele só (.) e ele só chega dentro de tcasa, eu e ele mesmo estamos agora tnuma
situação (.) que ele só chega dentro de casa que é só (.) t ((tvaca tputa tégu a))i e;
(de) (.) e mau tratamento na frente dos filhos, DIZ PROS MEUS FILHOS QUE EU
NÃO SOU MÀE DOS MEUS FILHOS E EU SOU (.) então, o negócio tá pesado.=
=tá. ô dona;:: Jane, deixa eu entender uma coisa (.) a senhora diz que ele a {{begins
reading)) ameaça botar a senhora pra fora de casa e alega que tem um amante
{{stops reading)) e isso vem ocorrendo de quanto tempo pra çá que, >porque a
senhora disse que< houve uma t fase (.) em que os filhos dele levantaram a hipótese
d- da senhora ter um amante, aí depois os filhos saíram e se afastaram [(acabou)]
[foi aí que]=
=melhorou
(•)
6
[melhorou]
[deu algum] melhoramento
106
(.)
7
8
9
10
11
12
SW*;
Jane:
SW‘:
Jane;
SW‘;
Jane;
e agora (.) a coisa começou agora com seus filhos, seus filhos que tão negando?=
=a mesma, é a mesma coisa, [aí]
[POR]QUE isso surgiu?=
=nesse meio tempo [agora] faz uns 2 anos dia 26 de janeiro fez 2 anos que ele teve=
[isso que eu,]
=derrame...
DATA SEGMENT 4
1 Jane;
...eu até falei pra ele T((o, Rafael (enTquanto) tu vais comprar um tcarro que nós
temos um (.) pra que dois carro, (.) por que que tu num (.) por que que tu tnum
reTformas a casa,))i (.) t((>eu num vou fazer casa pra ti e pros teu macho< (.) >pra
ti pros teu macho e pra tua família<))i então a cisma Tdele é meu macho e minha
família (.) então (.) eu não sei >o que é que eu vou fazer mais do lado desse
HOMEM.<
2
SW';
8
9
Jane
SW'
Jane
SW'
Jane
SW'
Jane
Ttá dona Jane, e de dois anos pra cá que foi levantado de novo a história de
atmante, e se- não sabe nada assim, eles apontam, alguém, ou só;;, acusam
alguém?=
=não.=
=houve alguma.=
=e [e]
[fojfoca, alguma coisa?=
=eu não sei se eles explicaram, eu sou mulher que eu trabalho,=
=am,=
=tenho. tenho formação, trabalho, eu trabalho em casa de família, tem vários, (.)
PODE perguntar à à vizinhança lá, que eu acho que ninTguém pode me levantar
isso, (.) que eu sou (.) eu sou, tuma mulher eu acho que ele não merece TANTO a
minha honestitdade.
(.)
(.)
10 Jane;
11 SW';
12 Jane:
ele não merece a a a honestidade minha não. pelo homem que ele é, eu acho que ele
não não merece a minha honestidade, aí ne ne nesse meio tempo aí, (.) quando ele
ganhou os doze mil real ele começou;;;, só a andar:, que aí o médico suspendeu do
serviço e ele ficou com medo de trabalhar, daquele restante do dinheiro que sobrou
(do) Tcarro, (.) el- ele pegou o dinheiro e guardou lá na vizinha. (.) >não deixou
dentio de tcasa porque eu era ladrona,< (.) ele me ass-. me ae;; >me acusa de tudo
quanto é Tcoisa,< (.) >eu sou ladrona. sou tudo pra ele.<=
=um:=
=(pois é) (.) >porque eu sou tmu'llher< (.) >pode perguntar pra ele qual foi o dia
que eu fui lá na loja fazer uma compra, que os móveis de dentro de casa que eu
tenho< (.) é tudo comprado com o meu dinheiro, (.) TUdo ( )>ele me acusa de
ladrona, é;;: é que eu tenho Tmacho, é;: a minha mãe é a mesma coisa, (que a minha
família tudo)< é ho- horroroso (.) aí (.) nesse vai e vem, (nesse) vai vai e vem, (.) ele
(.) ele pegou o dinheiro guardou na vizinha, >aquilo ali pra mim foi uma cacetada
olha,< (.) >a gente é< Vive vinte e quatro anos, com tquatro filhos, criei ttrês dele,
um homem desconfitar, da própria mulher? o que que é tisso, (.) eu na hora eu
fiquei brava, tá. ai passou-se, (.) aí naquele mei-meio tempo (.) (
) de pouco
tempo ele começou, (.) >eu acho que acaca- acabou o dinheiro porque ele não tava
trabalhando,< ele teve basttante tempo parado. (.) aí;, ele (.) lá fez (.) botou os filhos
contra mim e é e é e essa guria ela nunca nunca ajudou dentro de casa, eu tava uns
três ou quatro anos trabalhando e ela nun- nunca ajudou em casa (.) ela nunca foi de
me dar um presente, que ela não é;, não é;, não é uma boa filha não.
(•)
13 Rafael;
14 Jane:
{(nods negatively))
[^la, ela, nun nun, aí (.) ele faz as coisas, aí um dia eu fiii tomar café começava a
comer as coisas, >ele começou a arregalar os olhos pra mim.<
(.)
107
15 Jane:
>não queria que eu comesse dentro de casa,< eu digo t((> o que que tá acontecendo
aqui dentro de casa, ainda MAIS ESSA ainda por pra cima de m im ?<))i
16 Jane:
t((>apesar de que eu tenho toda essa fama, ainda eu não gosso comer dentro da
minha çasa?<))i (.) t((Té))'t (.) que ele diz que a, que a casa não é tm inha (.) t ( ( t é
porque não sa- tais sabendo que tais comendo a, a comida da tua fílh a,))i eu (disse)
T((eu não quero saber se a tua filha tá tdando. (.) o direito de botar comida dentro
de casa és TU. se ela tá dando, ela não tá fazendo mais do que obrigação botar a
comida pra tm im .(.) ela não tá só dando pra mim, t e eu nun- eu nunca pedi ela
também (.) eu também trabalho.))! aí tá, ai (
) (.) >começaram a netgar< (.) um
dia ela foi inventar de fazer janta, mas ela, mas ela (tem um lance) (.) que ela é uma
menina que ela nunca ajudou dentro de casa, no serviço de casa, ela nunca lavou
uma roupa, nunca passou, nun- nunca limpou uma casa, ela nun- nunca fez tnada.
(.) ela só cuidava da roupa dela, (.) com certa idade eu deixei ela tomar conta da
roupa dela. aí até que um dia ela veio fazer essa tjan ita. (.) eu disse assim t((é
então nós hoje nós vamos ter uma, uma, nós vamos ter uma:::)4^ ((pause)) t((nós
vamos ter então a:: jantinha,))4 t ( ( t é tu não és nem louca, tu não és nem doida tu,
tu comer, que eu já te falei que tu não vais com er,))i eu digo t((eu vou cotmer)) (.)
ai eu bati pé. (.) eu digo t((eu vou com er.))i t((ah mas tu não é, tu não é nem nem
louca, guria))'!' (.) tá (.) aí, >arrumou a mesa, não botou meu prato passei-lhe a mão,
sentei na mesa,< ((pause)) passei-lhe a mão, (.) botei o prato, (.) puxei o arroz >ela
tinha feito arroz< (.) arroz, macarrão, maionese, galinha e farofa, aí a farofa ela tava,
tava, tava terminando de fazer, NUNca cozinhou no dia que foi cozinhar inveninvocou que eu não ia eu digo t((eu vou cotm er))4 (.) t((pode dar o que tder, mas
que eu vou comer eu vou ,))i onde é que se viu, (.) e eele apóia muito estas tolices
dos filhos (.) (porque) ele não toma uma autoridade dentro de casa (.) ele bota os
filhos tudo contra mim, (.) aí, passei lhe a mão, botei o prato aí ela assim ó t((eu já
te falei que tu não tcom es.))! eu digo t((m as eu vou comer, eu te falei que eu vou
comer, eu sou teimosa, tu és teimosa eu também sou.))4 botei a comida, ela
((pause)) deu um empurrãozinho no prato (.) fiquei quieta comigo, t((vai dar))4 (.)
ela pegou e deu o setgundo (.) empurrãozinho no prato {{beats the desk as she
speaks the following two wo/-ífc))t((té hoje))! eu tem certas horas que eu não sei
aonde é que eu tenho meu sangue (.) eu acho que eu tenho sangue de barata, (.) aí,
deu 0 terceiro coisa, chegou no canto da mesa, um pouco virou assim, com o
empurrão que ela deu, (.) aí eu puxei o prato e botei pra {{beats the desk as she
speaks the following word)) cá. (.) ela disse t((>eu já falei pra ü que tu não vai
comer<))>!^ eu digo t((m as eu vou comer.))! ai quando eu passei lhe a mão pra
{{beats the desk as she utters the next word)) comer, ela pegou e botou as {{beats the
desk as she utters the next word)) mão dentro da minha {{beats the desk as she utters
the next word)) comida, ela assim t((agora tu podes comer, que eu já limpei as
minha mão dentro da tua comida agora {{beats the desk as she utters the next word))
tu podes comer))! eu digo t((podes comer, agora vem cá, (
) ) ) ! ele tava lá no
quarto, (.) passei-lhe a mão no PRATO DEle, (.) botei embaixo do meu, e alevantei
(oo) (é aqui ó) t((porque eu tô aturando demais con ttigo,))! naquela hora eu, EU
dei uma de, de, de agressiva (.) eu digo t ( ( (tu ques é aqui ó) ) ) ! (.) aonde é que se
viu imia filha fazer tum , um dia uma janta e não (e INVOCAR) que eu não ia
cotmer, mas isso ele já vem falando {{crackles fingers as she speaks the following
three words)) há muitos tempo que eu não ia mais comer dentro de casa, ia passarIhe a mão (em-) (.) a mão com a o prato ia, ia, >ia jogar nela,< ai ele correu lá do
quarto e:: e >agarrou< t ( ( t não (.)>vocês não tão vendo que não se fala com é< com
essa sem vergonha, com essa vagabunda, (.)>que isso aí não sei o que, isso aí não
sei,< (.) >isso ai nem nem é mulher pra tá mais dentro aqui, dentro de casa,< (.) >se
(tu) bobear eu (tento por) ela na rua.<))! eu digo t((m eu filho, (.) não é bem
a!ssim, (.) não é bem assim (.) eu sou mulher, eu tenho vinte e 24 anos de PAPEL
assinado contigo, não é bem assim como tu tá falando não.))! >porque eu toda a
vida falei com te le com calma< (.) >porque os papel que ele anda fazendo, eu era
pra ser mulher pra, pra tratar no pau e rachar na cabeça de um [(
<)]
(.)
108
17 SW':
18 Jane:
19 Jane:
20 SW':
21 Jane:
22 SW':
[tá. (.) dona Jane,] eu já
entendi a sua parte, dona Ja (.) dona Jane ttodos os outros filhos tratam a senhora
assim?=
=todo ele (.) ele manda. > tesse pequeninho chama eu de tvaca, de tégua, de tputa,
de galinha, de tudo quanto é coisa,<
((pause))
tiu n dia de manhã (.) levantou (descobri) esse de 16 anos aqui, o de 14 anos o
coitado ele foi lá na escola buscar. (.) levantaram de manhã eu não sei o, se eles
tiveram um papo que eu (.) ele só fala com os filhos só pelas minhas costas (.) pela
minha frente ele não fala tnada com os filhos. (.) eu tquando quero falar eu falo na
frente de todo te le (.) eu sou, eu sou sincera (.) >levantaram de manhã, eu botei a
chaleira,< o:: que eu não uso, bota na chaleira eu boto num bulinho e faço café
cabeludo, que é o pó dentro do cois- eu acendi o fogo, esse de 16 anos passou lá
tzup desliigou. tcinco vezes, ((pause)) eu digo, t((>m as será que hoje eu não vou
tomar cafe?<))i os dois. t((eu já te falei que hoje tu não vais tomar café.))'l^ a a
guria fez isso foi (.) 4 (.) 3 ou 4 de setembro, >agora em setembro vai fazer um ano
que ela fez isso< aí, eu não sei se isso foi (.) a guria fez primeiro ou eles, (.) eu acho
que a guria fez primeiro e eles fizeram depois com o café, tporque UM atiça o outro
entende? (.) e faz. aí eles levantaram, eles desligou a água cinco vezes, aí quando foi
na quinta vez, eu o peguei (eu) tomei a ligar o fogo de novo eu disse t((o café eu
vou tomar, (.) agora se vocês não quiserem tomar é problema de vocês agora, EU
VOU TOMAR O MEU CAFÉ)) i (.) eu fiz igual a gutria (.) insisti. (.) fiii lá
acender ele assim t((tu pode totmar, (.) mas tu vai tomar (.) tu vai tomar (.) caágua pura, que café tu não vais tomar))4' eles passaram a mão na lata do pó (.) eu fui
lá >tinha outro meio quilo dentro do armário< , peguei e fiz o café, eles passaram a
mão na, no açucareiro (.) t((vais tomar café a a azedo))i eu digo t((nã::o, te u vou
tomar o meu café como eu tenho costume))^ aí eu passei lhe a mão no saco de
açúcar, botei. (.) aí foram no saco de pão que eles vivem há há tempo negando,
porque (.) esse aqui era muito franco, era dinheiro na mão, era era era tudo, ele
começou a negar pão, ele começou a negar comida, ele começou a fazer a cabeça
dos filhos, os filhos fizeram a a a mesma coisa, e eu tô insistindo dentro de casa, que
eu acho que eu, EU tenho autoridade dentro de casa, pra eu (insistir), aí (.) daqui
dali, (.) chegamos até na hora da mesa. (.) aí chegou de noite eu fritei um: baita prato
de:: (.) (fritei) de banana, ((pause)) aquele de 16 gosta, aquele de 16 ali ele gosta
muito de banana frita, é o único que come banana frita, aí o de 14 anos assim t ((o o
0 o Jo-João, estcuta, já que tu tais-já que ela não vai comer frutas tu passas a mão
nesse prato de batnana, e tu jogas fora.))^ (.) eu digo t( (ta h tu podes até jogar o
prato de banana que eu não como, eu não como banana, não faz mal. (.) só que tu
bota a banana fora depois tu vai comer pão seco.))i t((ta h mas tu não vai nem
comer banana, nem café, nem pão, tu não vais, daqui pra frente tu não vais mais
comer, eu quero ver se tu vais com er.))i t((eu VOU mostrar pra vocês como eu vou
comer.))i=
=(°
°)=
=aí, passei lhe a mão (.) fui na geladeira botar a mortadela, suspendaram a o prato da
mortadela e o queijo (
) aí eu tinha daquele queijinho branquinho (.) coalhada que
eles tratam né, (.) aí ele assim: t((já que tu jogasse a banana, tu joga o prato de
queijo fora tamtbém))4 eu digo t((não setnhor. ((pause)) >a banana até tu pode
jogar que eu não como< agora o prato de queijo aqui tu não v a tis jogar FOra não))4^
eu disse. (.) aí quando e ile passou lhe a mão, ( ) ele puxou num-numa ponta, e eu
puxei noutra, ele puxou numa ponta, eu puxei noutra, e eu consegui putxar, ele
queria jogar fora eu passei lhe a mão (dele no queijo) e taquei lhe na cara. ((pause))
ai nós pegamos no pau. (.) aí eu [(o)]
[me]u deus, que horror.
(.)
23 Jane:
24 SW':
25 Jane:
ho[RROR,]
[que situa]ção [que tá,]
[é hoRROR] (.) aí eu passei lhe a mão, (conseguiu), sentei, aí nesse
meio tempo [eile,]
109
26 Rafael:
27
28
29
30
Jane:
Rafael:
Rafael:
Jane:
31
32
33
34
Jane:
SW‘:
Jane:
Jane:
[>a senhora] pegue sua mão no telefone, liga pra delegacia de
Barreiros, que a família dela é toda assim, tia.< TEM UMA LISTA, TODOS (.) tem
QUAtro já separados=
=não te confunde [com os] outros=
[pára]
=deixa eu falar [deixa eu falar]
[não te coníun]de
(.)
>eu ai-eu ainda não terminei<=
=então então deixa só ela terminar o se[nhor] vai falar=
[eu]
=eu não terminei ainda (.) aí eu passei lhe a mão ele pegou, na-naquele meio tempo
que eu consegui ele veio em cima de mim. (.) aí ele me deu um soco, me deu um
soco. aí eu peguei dei lhe lun empurrão assim contra ele con- {{indicates location
with gestures)) a mesa é aqui, a geladeira aqui, tem xun (fogãozinho aqui), eu peguei
dei lhe um emptxrrão. ele foi ali, no coisa ali, (.) assim atrás da mesa, eu >queria< (.)
dar uma chapada nele naquela hora, aí ele (.) t (( (se os gurizão todos querem
grandão,) ) ) i aí quando, eu fui pra dá uma nele, aí ele pegou e deu lhe uma,
deu lhe uma, deu lhe uma pe^da na na minha barriga, aí quando ele saiu dali (.) ele
não, ele desde aquele dia (tem) apontado mais o que eu vou comer e o que eu não
vou comer só forma ninguém mais reagiu (.) eu digo, t((aonde é que se viu, eu
dentro da minha casa, EU não poder comer, EU não poder tomar o meu café,))i
((trêmula voice as she speaks the following four words)) T((VOU, VOU, VOU,
VOU comer))>l^ (.) aí ele (.) falou, chegou daquele ali e (tomou) (.) aí (.) ele começou
com t((°não°))i este daqui tudo tudo quer dar ordem como se eu seje (,) uma
menina, uma empregada (.) eles que-, eles querem dar ordem pra mim
(■)
35 SW':
36 Jane:
[olha eu já,]
[(a partir de hoje,)]
(.)
37 Jane:
t((de a partir de hoje em diante eu não, (.) eu não faço mais serviço pra vocês (.) eu
não vou lavar mais pra vocês e não vou mais (pra) cozinhar,))i que esse aqui toda
vida ele dizia (.) T((se tu não quisesse fazer não tem problema, a minha filha faz,
pela minha filha eu faço tqualquer coisa))'l (.) então ele me, me tcarcareia, (.) e
deu todo 0 apoio pra filha (.) e a filha tá (.)ttá ao lado dele fazendo a mesma coisa.
38 SW':
então tá (.) dona Jane já entendi a- o tclima da sua família (.) agora a senhora só
escuta e ele fala (.) >depois a senhora fala de novo se precisar<=
=arram=
=0 que que [tá- (.) PORQUE.]
[pergunta pra ela. Tquantas] horas eu trabalho,
((pause))
tu?=
=é=
=>agora tu tais traba[lhan]do bas[tan]te<
[ah,]
[ah,]
(.)
39 Jane:
40 SW':
41 Rafael:
42
43
44
45
Jane:
Rafael:
Jane:
Rafael:
46
47
48
49
50
51
Rafael:
Jane:
Rafael:
Jane:
Rafael:
Jane;
(.)
agora não, eu estou trabalhando=
=>tais trabalhando,<=
=tquanto?=
=trabalhas das 4 horas às 7 da noite=
=o mais cedo, o mais tarde que eu levanto, [>4 horas da manhã às 7 da noite<]
[4 horas da manhã]
(.)
52 Rafael;
eu não tenho tempo de cuidar de casa
53 Rafael:
sabe o quê que ela faz?
(•)
(.)
110
54 Rafael;
ela não limpa tum banheiro (.) ela não lava tuma roupa dos filhos (.) ela não faz
tiun café pros filhos (.) ela não faz tuma janta pra mim,
(■)
55
56
57
58
SW‘;
Rafael;
SW';
Rafael;
[o] que que levou a isso? [seu;:]
[(é)]
[o que] que levou a isso,=
=da (
) antes dessas fdiscussão, o que que, levoui]
[eu vou dizer pra senhora a famijlia dela é toda estourada
assim, (.) eles não querem que fale, se a gente falar é bantdido é; (,) mas pode ligar
pro delegado de Barreiros, (ou) do Estreito, >não sei de onde é< (.) pode ir lá que
tem uma papelança cheia de questão deles toda a vida. (.) não acaba mmca a família,
(.) tudo é: é tem 3 ou 4 separados, tem um filho agora esfaqueou o pai todo (.) são
tudo maluco assim, pode botar a internar que é tudo doido.
59
60
61
62
Rafael;
SW';
Rafael;
SW';
pode [(fazer.)]
[tá,] mas o porquê, dessa questão assim d- de alegar que ela tem amante,=
=não, [(
)]
[isso tem fundamento,]
(.)
63 Rafael;
64 SW';
65 Rafael;
66 SW';
67 Rafael:
(•>
tem fundamento sabe o que que acon[tece,] é que tquando a senhora procura ela,=
[um,]
= que eu chego em casa pra procurar ela, ela tá no Paraná (.) tá em Porto Alegre, (.)
a gente não sabe onde é que anda=
=mas 0 senhor não soube tnada, assim, (.) [de de de ho-]
[não, (isso a-)] o que e- o que ela faz, é
papel de gente que vi- que não é tcerta.
(■)
68
69
70
71
72
73
SW':
Rafael:
SW';
Rafael:
SW':
Rafael:
74 SW';
75 Rafael;
76 SW':
77 Rafael:
78
79
80
81
82
SW';
Rafael:
SW';
Rafael:
Rafael;
[ela sai,] mas o senhor nunca VIU ela com homem, nunca soube dela com homem,=
[(
)]
= dessa coisa não. [concretamente,] >CONCRE]TA[MENTE<] rea- não,=
[bom, o- 0-]
[o que ela diz,]
= 0 que o senhor imagina que ela feça, (.) a- a- isso eu não; [vou entrar nesse mérito]
[o que eu imagino] é que
ela me chama de como o que que a senhora quer que eu diga?=
=não, eu quero saber, não, não é nesse te- nisso que eu quero entrar, >eu quero
assim< concretamente. tem alguma história de- de ela ter enganado o senhor? alalguma coisa [conCRETA,]
[é é o] que ela fala [pros]
[EXISJTE UMA PESSOA REAL que o senhor
soube, que [realmente, (seu fulano),]
[que os guris contavam,] (que) os guris nunca diziam quem é. também eu
nunca tentei descobrir, {{claps)) se era ou se não era=
=ah tá.=
=né=
=então, o senhor nunca soube [de na]da,=
[não]
=só tem uma coisa, ela, ela, o que que a senhora acha, (.) quando eu ti-eu, eu não
tinha conta no banco, o dinheiro, ela contou do dinheiro, que eu, num, num acredito
mais nela, num acredito, (.) ela tinha conta no banco, EU não tinha, aí eu depositei,
eu queria eu, tinha que reformar o fuquinha eu disse pra ela ó, t ((eu não tenho o
dinheiro ttodo, vou botar na tua tconta, quando tiver a conta eu vou indo arramar o
fuque.))i (.) aí eu comecei, ((pause)) QUANDO deu a conta, eu peguei o foque, eu
acho que eu fiz o negócio com ela não precisa eu perguntar t((ó. eu já tenho
dinheiro pra botar o carro na oficina))i (.) se eu botei dinheiro ali praquílo ela sabia.
(.) quando o carro tavapronto, t((me dá o dinheiro))4 t((tchutchu))4 (.) 40.000
cruzeiros na época ATE HOIE eu não sei o que é que ela fez. (.) a briga dos MEUS
FILHOS com ELA, os OUTROS, que ela mesma tá contando que eles adoravam ela
davam pretsente, lun irmão dela que é s;acana veio de São Paulo, >deixou a família
toda lá,< se meteu dentro da nossa casa, ela tirava comida dos tfilhos, pregou o
Ill
quarto >(pode ver lá) nosso quarto (tá) todo pregado de tábua.< (.) a comida toda
dentro do quarto não dava comida pros filhos
83 SW>:
84 Rafael:
85 Rafael:
(•)
[pros] seus filhos,=
[e:]
=pros meus filhos, ( ) os vizinhos que davam coTmida, (.) senhora quer eu trago
vizinho, testemunha, que a, teve uma senhora lá que sustentou meus filhos por
Tquase um ano. ( )ela pegava tudo, dava comida pra mãe, (
) pros filhos, pros
meus guris não,
(•)
86 SW‘:
87 Rafael:
e 0 senhor via isso?=
=cansei de ver, chegava em casa o que, T((não eles- eles fazem bagunça, eles tão
roubando))^ e EU na época achava que tera, que a gente não parava em tcasa,
t((eles tiram dali.))4 no fim agora, quando os meus guris saíram, que saíram pra
rua, (.) que ela pode provar que eu tenho um filho hoje que tem mini-mercado, tem
tudo não agradece NEM ELA (nem a mim) >que eles não pediram nem um tostão
nosso< (.) saíram com imia mão na frente uma atrás (.) pra dar umas trouxas velhas
ftii eu que tirei de dentro de casa e dei (.) que era do casamento primeiro da mãe
dele, não era tdela, ela me critica até thoje (.) tá, não faz comida pros filhos, não
lava roupa pros filhos >o que que a senhora quer que eu faça,<
(•)
DATA SEGMENT 5 (This comes right after the previous segment. I separated
this to facilitate my handling of the data)
1
SW*:
e essa (.) esse desentendimento com- a agora com os seus filhos, com esses
[4 AGORA come]çou de quando, seu::=
[eles se revoltam]
=>agora tá fazendo uns 2 anos que eles se revoltam, que ela não< faz comida, não
faz nada, passa tá aqui ó, a senhora, ela falou do carro, agora, o carro ttá no meu
nome (.) é meu e Tdela.
2
3
Rafael:
Rafael:
4
5
SW‘:
Rafael:
o desentendimento come[çou] porque ela não fazia as coisas [pros tfilhos?]
[ó]
[não faz nada.]=
=dentro de casa.
6
7
SW':
Rafael:
foi [dona:,]
[tá aqui ó] {(shows a paper to the mediator))
8
Rafael:
telefone que ela comprou (.) no nome da irmã (.) pros filhos não ser herdeiros (.) a
senhora quer que os filhos seja o que, (.) gente boa >dentro de casa,< (.) TEM um
lote na Palhoça que eu:- trago a- o papel que eu tenho em casa já em mão. (.) esse
aqui eu peguei hoje, tenho um papel em mão, que ela comprou um lote, NO NOME
DA IRMÃ pros filhos não herdar >quer dizer< se acontecer dela morrer, quem é que
vai herdar, é os- os meus filhos, ou é a irmã dela,=
(•)
(•)
(.)
(.)
9 SW‘:
10 Jane:
airmãdela,=
=(
)
11 Jane:
12 Rafael:
po-po[sso falar,]
[não, pára.]
(•)
(.)
13
14
15
16
17
18
Rafael:
Jane:
SW':
Rafael:
SW':
Rafael:
[deixa,] deixa eu [falar,]=
[t°não,°]
[(“então fala°)]=
=(°é::°)=
=deixa eu falar,=
=fala, seu::=
=tá, então tudo isso tá revoltando os guris (.) os guris querem ir pra escola, não tem
uma roupa patssada, uma roupa latvada. (.) o banheiro tá- chama os guris aqui,
quem limpa o banheiro e faz faxina no banheiro >sou eu de noite quando chego do
112
serviço,< (.) a pia dessa altura de >roupa< de louça, E ELA >vai pro carismático
todo dia de tnoite.<
(.)
19
20
21
22
SW';
Rafael;
SW';
Rafael;
vaipraonde?=
=carismática, pra igreja, [>não] não sei o quê que ela faz na igreja, tanto na=
[tã;]
= igreja que.< o- ela a vida que ela passa deus eu acho que >não tá abençoando lá de
cima tanto assim também<
23 Rafael;
e eu fico. venho do serviço às 7 horas, vou pra pia lavar louça, vou limpar banheiro,
24 SW';
25 Rafael;
e vou fazer a hmpeza da minha tcasa? (.) e ela faz o que? e ela quer ser santa
ain[da?]
[eis]soveiohádois tanos, [esse desentendi-]=
[é já uns 3] anos pra cá que ela não fez mais na[da]
(.)
26 SW‘;
27 SW';
[e;]=
=não mas eu digo assim, e antes o relacionamento dela com os filhos, antes desses 2
anos, com os seus filhos, era bom?
28 Rafael;
QUANdo os outros saíram de casa, que eu comecei a apoiar a mãe ^ l a e os irmãos
dela em de casa de novo, virou mil mara\ãlha,
29 Rafael;
agora nesses dias eu saí ela não fez comida tnem pra mim nem pro meu gutri.
30 Rafael;
eu fui comprar- eu fui comprar tpão quando voltei tava a sobrinha- a sobrinha dela.
(■)
(•).
(.)
(.) sentada lá na mesa, rodeada, que graças a deus, lá em casa comida sempre teve (.)
de tudo que era de bom pra sobrinha, aí eu cheguei,
((pause))
31 Rafael;
32 SW';
então dói na gente, faz favor, dói. (•) eu não vou, eu não sou um cativo pra trabalhar,
eu e a minha filha >sustentando< a casa (.) ela pega o dinheiro dela e só viaja mais a
mãe (.) >só paga viagem pra mãe< (.) deu televisão pra mãe deu tudo (.) iss- agora
(>
no centro
ninguém
<) (.) saiu numa sex[ta,]
[ela] tem dinheiro?=
(.)
33 Rafael;
34 Jane;
[ela tratba]lha nega,
[(eu não.)]
(.)
35 Rafael;
36 SW';
37 Rafael;
38 Jane;
39
40
41
42
43
44
Rafael;
Rafael;
Jane;
Rafael;
Rafael;
Jane;
ela ganha mais do que eu.
((pause))
ah, ela é faxi- (°ela é°)=
=ela, ela é [faxineira,]
[não é não eu,] eu tra-tra-eu trabalho em ca- >em casa de família,< não é
tanto assim, não. só porque EU não boto o meu dinheiro fora níão.1
[((laughs))]=
=mas [se não gasta um tostão!]
[eu emprego eu sei] eu sei empregar [meu dinheiro]
[não gasta um tostão com] pão,=
=é obri[gada] a [guardar] ditnheiro,=
[é;;] [tclaro]
(.)
45 Jane;
não (.) [o]
46 Rafael;
47 SW';
48 Rafael;
[ag]ora tá aqui ó=
=°só um pouquinho dona Jane,°
=ó ((showspaper to the mediator))
49 Rafael;
eu pago o INPS meu, e tu sabe disso, que eu pago (.) EU pago luz (.) EU pago a
comida (.) EU pago a manutenção de dois carros (.) eu e a guria (.) e tu só come
bonitinho,=
=(ah;;)=
=e ^ o dinheiro pra mãe, viajar, porque, o dinheiro é teu,
(.)
50 Jane;
51 Rafael;
(.)
113
52 Rafael:
>e o nosso não<
53 Rafael;
>aí tu quer que nós te damos a comida bonitinha na boca.< tn ão é assim netga.
54 Rafael:
vai ajuntar o teu montinho (ó), a (.) eu vou dar cinco ou dez por semana pra ajudar.
55 Rafael:
tu faz isso? não né,
((pause))
não?=
=calma, tu pode falar tudo que tu tiver [pra falar.]
[não, mas] >não tô falando tudo?<=
=fala=
=eu tô perguntando se não é,
(.)
(•)
(.)
56
57
58
59
60
Rafael:
Jane:
Rafael:
Jane:
Rafael:
(•)
61 Rafael:
66 Jane:
eu não tô mentindo, eu não vim (.) >eu não sou guri pequeno pra perder meu dia de
serviço, pra me tirar do serviço pra,< pra (.) uma PALHAÇADA dessa que tu tais
fazendo, eu nunca=
=e eu,=
=ó, meu pai, [meu pai faleceu com 83 anos,] meu pai faleceu com 83 anos tnunca=
[eu não tô perdendo tempo,]
=foi numa delegacia, eu tô com 56 nunca vim. (.) a primeira vez que eu vim, por
causa de ti.=
=(
)
67 Jane:
68 Rafael:
tu devia se-seguir o exemplo do teu pai!=
={{long hreath))
62
63
64
65
Jane:
Rafael:
Jane:
Rafael:
(.)
(.)
69 Rafael:
70 Jane:
[>meu pai não tinha uma mulh- igual- uma mãe,<]
[devia seguir o exemplo do teu pai ah] pois é=
71 Rafael:
igual a ti guria,=
(.)
(.)
72 Jane:
73 SW‘:
74 Jane:
75
76
77
78
Rafael:
Jane:
Rafael:
Jane:
79
80
81
82
83
Rafael
Jane:
Rafael
Jane:
Rafael
84 Jane:
85 Rafael:
86 Jane:
o, o caso é o seguinte, sobre o telefone,=
=ã,=
=sobre o telefone, sobre o lote que ele tá falando, eu toda vida disse t((Rafael
vamos fazer uma economia, que a gente tá morando aqui, [a] manhã depois o cara=
[°ã,°]
=bota a gente pra [rua,] a gente não sabe pra onde é que vai (.) AÍ, (.) nesse=
[°ã, °]
=vai e tvem eu comprei o lote porque pra gente pra comprar uma-uma- uma coisa
não tem que ter lun::: um rendimento, pra comprar alguma coisa, a não ser que
compre com dinheiro, eu não tinha dinheiro. (.) ele diz que eu dei uma televisão pra
minha mãe, eu quando (.) quando a televisão, a únic- a únic- única televisão que tá lá
dentro de casa estragada foi quando ele deu tele- e- a- a televisão que ele botou uma
televisão a cores >nós tinha u-u-uma preto e branco,< ele comprou uma (.) televisão
(.) a teores, (.) quando o guri dele começou a aprontar na época,=
=tnão nega, é que a nossa tinha quebrado querida,=
=(não)=
=>não inventa coisa né,<=
=nmn mente.=
=tu não mente né, ô ô ela vai no Koerich que ela nem nome no Koerich não tinha ( .)
eu compro desde de idade de 17 anos no Koerich (.) aí ela não tinha nome, (.)
t((ta h Rafael, eu queria comprar,))! (.) fui lá (.) assinei de avalista pra ela comprar
TUdo que ela compra agora as notas, pode olhar, móveis é no nome dela, tudo tá (.)
pode ir tlá tá tudo {{beats one hand on the other three times, as he says the
following three words)) guardado pra me comer ttudo até meus olhos da catbeça (.)
ela já falou. =
=eu não tenho e- e- essa idéia não senhor=
=não [tens?]
[>É MAIS] FÁCIL TU COMER O MEU<=
114
87
88
89
90
Rafael:
SW':
Jane:
SW':
91 Jane:
=não [tens?]
[táj tá, tá [agora-]
[>é mais] fácil tu comer o meu.<=
=fala dona Jane, o que que tá havendo assim, esses desentendimentos, é porque a
senhora não faz as coisas pra ele?=
=não sei porque antes também já tinha.
(.)
92 SW':
93 Jane:
94
95
96
97
98
Rafael:
Jane:
Rafael;
Rafael:
Jane:
[ã,]
[eu] deixei de fazer a ele, porque ele (vive) sempre me agredindo, e
sempre me [chamando] eu de tvaca, de égua, [de galinha, de bruxa,]=
[°tchutchu°]
[(°não, não é assim, nega°)]
=de- de- de [tudo quanto] é coisa até,=
[>não é assim não,<]
=tu [mesmo num disseste agora que melhorou,]
[que ele- (.) me- me abusa]
(.)
99 Jane:
ele ele ele diz ele diz ele diz pros filhos T((vocês tem mais é que (na) cara dela bo(.) bota esta vagabunda pra rua))i (.) enttão desde aquele tdia, desde três de
setembro, que o guri levantou de manhã (.) que não deixou eu tomar café eu digo
t((a partir de hoje em diante (.) eu não lavo, não coanho, não arrumo mais a casa,
(.) a não ser [(
)))i]
100 SW‘;
[VOCÊS DORMEM em] quarto separado, [seu::]
101 Jane:
[tnão,]=
102 Rafael: =dormimos [na mesma cama]
103 Jane:
[junto mas:] nintguém (.) se mexe um com outro.
(.)
104 SW':
meu t ^ u s [que situação.]=
105 Jane:
[já há muito tempo.]=
106 Rafael: =eu tenho um colchão que eu comprei porque eu sou- eu tenho:: problema de::
circulação, também. (.) comprei um colchão-japonês que hoje eu não sei nem
quanto é que custa, mas deve custar uns 3 mil reais mais ou menos (.) PRA ELA me
ajudiar de mim, (
) pra ajudiar de mim ela tirou (.) aquele colchão que era
pra circulação, botou um de esponja em cima e escondeu o de baixo. (.) tá lá pode ir
lá ver, >TA MINHA CASA É IGUAL A UM ENGENHO< (.) PODE IR LÁ VER<
(.) >TÁ DE BANDEIROLA TÁ DE SUJEIRA EM CIMA QUE É A MAIOR
VERGONHA< (.) >a minha vizinha tia dela< NEM O FOGÃO ELA LIMPA.=
107 Jane:
=a [minha casa é uma] vergonha, porque [é] uma casa de pedreiro, eu acho que
108 Rafael:
[>o pequeninho é que limpa<]
[°tã°]
109 Jane:
=nem (as-) [nem as pessoas da favela (
)]
110 Rafael:
[tia tia então, eu vou dizer pra senhora, o terreno] não é nosso, ela sabe
disso. (.) eu vou in- investir pra botar terreno numa casa que não é minha?=
111 Jane:
=e por que que tu n:-não investe fora?=
112 Rafael: =mas! oh,! >se eu não tenho condição de comprar um terreno nega,!<=
113 Jane:
=tcomo meu filho,=
114 Rafael: =eu tenho um terreno nas Potecas que eu comprei, da mãe dela, pergunta se eu não
comprei (.) batrato mas eu patguei.=
115 SW':
=um.
(.)
116 Rafael: foi feito um: lá um acordo (.) quando fizeram (.) ó, quer ver,
(.)
117 SW':
um,=
118 Rafael: =fizemos assim 10 filhos (.) tinha 250 metros de terreno (.) então foi tocado 20
metros e 50 pra cada um (.) PRA CADA UM pagar irni- um- um- uma- uma
proporção pra velha fazer (.) fazer imia poupança, que ela não queria vender pra um
estranho (.) todo mundo topou, só (t-) UM OU DOIS PAGOU e o resto não
pagaram, mas eu paguei, (.) aquele pouco, mas eu paTguei. (.) já (descob-) já tou
descotbrindo, (.) >que ela botou no nome da irmã pra pagar imposto e tudo pra (me
comer até) o terreno<=
119 Jane:
=>ele não paga imposto, [ele] não tem escritura, [ele não paga luz,]=
115
120
121
122
123
[ó]
[>mas eu não po-<]
Rafael:
=ele
não
paga
[nada,]
e
ele
diz
que
o
terreno
é
tdele<=
Jane:
[shi!]
Rafael:
Rafael: =ô nega,
124
125
126
127
128
Rafael: [o terren-]
[>ele não] tem papel não tem nada.<=
Jane:
Rafael: =a velha não me passou a escritura! como é que eu vou pagar imposto.=
Jane:
[(
)]
[é por]que tem que desmemtbrar
SW':
129
130
131
132
133
134
Rafael: [é.]
[é] obrigado [a desmembrar] pra poder=
SW':
[(pois é)]
Jane:
= [pagar imposto]
SW':
[>tnão, e ela quer que eu pague] o imposto de [que?<]
Rafael:
[senão] ele vai pagar o: imposto do
SW':
terreno todo.=
Rafael: =é
(.)4
SW':
[nisso] ele tem razão.=
Rafael: [tó]
Rafael: =Tó
(.)
(■)
135
136
137
138
DATA SEGMENT 6 (This is the talk that follows the interaction presented in the
last segment. I lost the talk between them—few seconds~as I changed
the side o f the tape during data collection.)
1 Jane:
2 Rafael:
ele não concorda nada com a minha [familia] ele não quer saber da [minha famila.]
[escuta]
[ei, estcuta]
3
4
Jane:
Rafael:
5
6
7
8
9
10
SW':
Rafael:
SW':
Rafael:
SW’:
Rafael:
=[ele não quer saber.]
=[primeiros 4] meses (.) primeiro 4 meses foi (
) terreno dividido em: em
nome (
) eu trago teu pai aqui teu pai pra provar que prova na sua-frente de
vocês (.) que eu paguei (.) E ELE que dividiu o terreno (.) e quem pagou os >4
meses soanho do terreno inteiro fiii eu< (.) os pri[meiros] 4 meses (.) eu VOU=
[°urrum°]
=provar [pra ti que eu dei o dinheiro]
[sim, o senhor pagou o terreno] todo?=
=ã?=
=0 senhor já pagou o terreno todo,=
=já paguei e paguei ã, eu paguei a vista senhora ATÉ Th OJE.
(.)
(.)
11 Rafael:
12 SW':
13 Rafael:
=[e eles não dão escritiu-a.]
=[e::::] e lá, 0 senhor não tem condições de fazer uma casa lá, não quer,=
=tem casa em cima >eles querem tomar tudo.<
(.)
14 Jane:
15 Rafael:
não, mas não é o:: o caso de tomar não.=
=(ttá) sim. já: >disseste até que a tua mãe vai vender pra vocês fazer casa<
16 Jane:
ele
(.)
(.)
17 Rafael:
18 Jane:
19 Rafael:
como é que não,=
=ele anda (.) ele [an]da falando pros filhos, já há muito tempo,
[ã,]
(.)
20 Rafael:
21 Jane:
22 Rafael:
[um,]
[ele] só (.) porque agora eu comprei esse telefone, que [foi] e- esse telefone=
[°um,°]
116
23 Jane;
24 Rafael:
25 Jane:
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Rafael:
Jane:
SW":
Jane:
Rafael:
SW':
Jane:
Rafael:
SW‘:
Jane:
SW':
Rafael:
Jane:
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
(Jane)
SW':
Jane:
SW':
Jane:
SW':
Rafael;
SW':
Rafael:
=agora em agosto vai fazer um ano que tá instalado.=
=°um°=
=a minha irmã que, que;: (.) que tinha;, ela se inscreveu pro telefone, >que ela tem
um e se inscreveu pra depois negociar, mas quando chegou o telefone ela não tinha o
dinheiro pra pagar< (.) >e ela pegou e me perguntou se eu quisesse< (.) então com
essa num vai e vem, com essa nossa briga. >eu não vou comprar o telefone e vou
botar pro meu Tnome.< (.) porque nós tamos a fim de uma hora se sepaRAR, eu não
vou dar telefone pra ele, que ele NUNca me ofereceu nada pra mim. eu tenho dentro
de casa, eu tenho eu tenho cama de solteiro que eu comprei, é colchão é meu, cama
de casal é meu, guarda-roupa é meu, armário de cozinha é meu, fogão é meu, pia é
meu, tudo os móveis, (.) e- ele fala que eu dei luna televisão pra minha mãe, quando
eu comprei a televisão pra pra [pra Tele, eu dei uma] de [vinte polegadas]=
[como é que pode né,]
[ô, Jane, como é-]
=pra ele,=
=tá, deixa eu perguntar uma coisa, vocês são casados comunhão univer[sal de]=
[somos]
[sim]
=bens.=
=[legal]mente.=
=[sim]
=então tudo o que vocês item é meio a:]=
[tiver (.) é meu e dele]
=me[io]
[é mei]o a [Tmeio,]
[é]
[é isso aí]
(•)
[°é meio°]
[não tem] Tnada que eu comprei ou o Mano comprou=
=é.=
=então vocês tão brigando por imia::=
=uma coi[sa, (
)]
[UMA COISA PERDIDA,]
[não mas eu não tô eu não] tô brigando, (.) >eu tô brigando por [isso]=
[né,]
=aqui tia, ó< {{handling a paper))
(.)
48 Rafael:
=eu tô brigando com isso aTqui, >que isso aqui não é meu<
49 SW':
50 Rafael:
=[quê que é isso,]
=[que não tá no nom-] não tá no meu nome Tdela é meu?
((pause))
isso aqui?
(•)
51 Rafael:
(.)
52 Rafael:
53
54
55
56
SW':
Rafael:
SW':
Rafael:
é é nosso?
((pause))
isso aí não é se-=
=>então<=
=de vocês=
=>então<
(.)
57 Rafael:
58 Jane:
>mas ela comprou e pagou<=
=pois é
(.)
59 Rafael:
Tó. >pois é< o: terreno que tu compraste na PaTlhoça de quem é?
(.)
60 Rafael:
61 Jane:
[é meu?]
[(sim)]
62 Jane;
escuta (.) eu eu já não entrei em contato contigo (.) T((ô Rafael, vamos vender o
terreno da cidade))4 que agora eu estou comprando um lotezinho >(
)
(.)
117
63 Rafael:
64 SW>:
65 SW‘:
MAIS (
) eu não quero que ele é muito encrenqueiro com a minha
família< (.) >eu tenho medo de ele ir pra lá e fazer conftisão vai dar até morte e
desgraça lá com a minha [famí]lia que ele é [muitol encrenqueiro<=
[ó]
[tá.]
=0 guê que vocês querem fazer mn a- um acordo tcom o, o seu:::
(•)
66 Jane:
67 SW :
>eu quero [mas] ele não quer<
68 Jane:
69 SW‘:
=[ele não] aceiíta nada de mim]
=[oquê]
[o quê que a senhora] quer,
70
71
72
73
74
o quê que a senhora quer,=
=eu tô batalhando (.) há muito tempo que eu quero uma çasa (.) e [ele] não quer=
[°ó°]
=oferecer uma casa {.) nem ele nem essa filha de: de 23 [anos], te la não quer.
[°6°]
[VOC-]
(•)
(.)
SW':
Jane:
Rafael:
Jane:
Rafael:
(.)
75 Rafael:
°ó°
76 Jane:
a idéia dele é a idéia do da filha, eeles não querem, (.) eles não querem adquirir
na[da ()]
[como] é que o senhor acha que pode ser feita essa t [casa,]=
[(não.)] (.) o que eu QUEro
(.)
77 SW :
78 Rafael:
(.)
79 SW :
80 Rafael:
um,
o que eu quero é o terreno, que eu já disse pra ela, que se eles vender, se ela ou a
mãe dela. >só quem pode vender é a mãe dela<
81 SW :
um
82
83
84
85
>se ela vender eu faço uma besteira< (.) já disse (.) [que] pode botar=
[(°é,»)]
= ai no pa[pel] que [eu vou provar isso]
[tá.]
[>não não não não ( )<]
(•)
(.)
Rafael;
(Jane);
Rafael;
SW ;
(.)
86 SW ;
eu quero saber o;; que o senhor quer.
87 SW':
88 Rafael:
89 SW';
=[(“ °)]
=[o que] eu quero que o terreno seja tnosso (.) eu paguei.
((pause))
um.=
90 Rafael;
tá.
9 IRafael:
agora eu não VOU vender, >pra mãe dela vender e ela passar a mão no dinheiro e eu
fitcar sem nada,< (.) se ela botar a mão no dinheiro te u não tenho=
=seguran[ça de tnada ]
[se eu vender o] terreno >eu quero fazer a mi[nha] casa lá=
[ó]
=em Forqui[lha,]<
[6]
(.)
(•)
(•)
92
93
94
95
96
Rafael;
Jane:
Rafael:
Jane;
Rafael;
(•)
97 Rafael;
98 Jane:
=[se eu vender, o meu terreno,]
= [porque TU não vai fazer],
99 Jane;
tu não vai fazer=
100 Rafael: =>se eu vender [o meu terreno] não nega,< [é nosso, é dos FILHOS],
101 Jane:
[euvou(ve-)]
[a minha idéia,]
118
(.)
102 Rafael: é dos filhos, não t é teu, [tu vai vender] o teu terreno como,=
103 Jane:
[meu filho,]
104 Jane:
= meu filho, (.) >aquele terreno nem eu assino nem,< nem tu assina, é a minha mãe
que assina >[(]
)<
105 Rafael:
[Trã]
(.)
106 Rafael: mas tu não [(tá, >acabou de diz-<)]
107 Jane:
[eu não tenho papell
(.)
108 Jane:
[(>eu não tenho papel.<)]
109 Rafael: [ô, doutora,] ela não >acabou de dizer,<=
110 SW‘:
=pois é, mas dona::.
(.)
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
SW>:
Jane:
Rafael:
Jane:
Rafael:
Rafael:
Jane:
Rafael:
mas a [senhora] sa[be que.]
[mas eu] [mas eu] quero uma casinha e [ele] não quer fazer pra mim de=
119
120
121
122
123
SW :
Jane:
Rafael:
Rafael:
SW :
onde é, onde é que a senhora quer construir,=
=[(
Palhoça)]
=[NA NO TERRENO DA PALHOCA1 QUE É DA IRMÃ DELA (.)=
=>QUE ELA [COMPROU] NO NOME DA IRMÃ<
[(das-)]
124
125
126
127
128
129
Rafael:
Jane:
Rafael:
Jane:
Rafael:
Jane:
m
=jei[to] nenhum (.) eu tô a fim de vender aquele terreno pra cons[truir] no lote.=
[°ó°]
[°um°]
=°um°=
=°e ele não quer aceitar de jeito ne[nhum.°]
[EU] VOU VENDER O MEU TERRENO PRA
CONSTRUIR NUM LOTE QUE É DA IRMÃ M L A ?
(.)
(.)
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
>EU VOU BOTAR O MEU DINHEIRO EM CIMA P O ] TERRENO p A ]=
[tu]
[tu]
=IRMÃDELA?<=
=tu não vai botar nada=
=>mas como não vou botar?<=
=porque se tu quiser fazer uma casa (.) eu compro o material que eu já te falei pra ti
eu tenho condições de comprar o meu material [to::dal semana todo mês=
Rafael:
[uf::::]
Jane:
[(
.)]é=
Rafael: [tu é uma ignorância mesmo]
=pois é, mas o terreno, e e, nessa parte ele tem razão, a senhora pensa bem, Dona
SW:
Jane, vocês são casados com comunhão de bem. (.) se não existe má fé de nenhuma
das partes, o PORQUÊ de não passar o terreno >que a senhora comprou da sua
irmã< pro seu nome,=
=porque [eu não posso,]
Jane:
[dá licença.] a senhora vende (.) o terreno lá, pede pra sua irm- a sua mãe
SW:
vender, vocês vendem, fazem junto uma Tcasa.=
Jane:
=e ele quer?=
SW':
=porque-
(.)
se [o terreno] tiver no nome [d- da] senhora [ou] de vocês,=
SW':
[mas eu num]
[é]
[é]
Rafael:
Rafael: =>agora não vou botar meu dinheiro< [(é se)]
SW':
[porque] na verdade, se vocês continuar
juntos, >amanhã depois vocês morrem< o- a çasa fica pros tfilhos.=
142 Rafael: =não vai ficar [pra irmã dela]
143 SW>:
[é naturall que fiqúe (.) é natural que fique pros seus filhos, que são
seus herdeiros (.) e amanhã depois se vocês se separar, o certo (.) a metade é de cada
um. isso aí é tjusto. a senhora não pode querer ts ó pra senhora.
138
139
140
141
O
119
144 SW':
se a senhora quer justiça, justiça é isso (.) ele tem que contribuir com a parte dele, a
senhora com a sua, vocês tão vinte e poucos anos casados, >o que vocês adquirir< (.)
o; ; se for pelo justo é metade de cada tum . (.) então, um tá querendo tapear o outro.
DATA SEGMENT 7
SW':
Rafael:
SW':
o que é que tá estragado, é falta de confi^ça, vocês são um casal e um tá
desconfiando do outro, um puxa pra um lado [o outro puxa pro outro enquan]to=
[eu eu eu não desconfio, tia]
=pai e mãe, >só um pouquinho seu RafaeK en- en- enquanto pai e mãe não se unir
os filhos vão ficar divi^dos (.) aí os filhos vão, vão pender logicamente pra aquele
que se mostra mais >Tvítima.< (.) não é,
(.)
SW'
Jane
SW'
de repente [pode] até que ele não seja a vítima mas ele, (.) no momento, (.)=
[claro]
=0 homem que (.) a a senhora pensa bem,
((pause))
a gente que vê de longe. (.) eu não t sei a [realidade] de vocês, (.) né? (.) não posso=
[°é, eu sei°]
=julgar, (.) mas assim, o perfil que vocês me trazem, a a a >o eoisa<. ele sai às 4 da
manhã e chega às 7 da noite, quer dizer, ele batalha.
SW'
Jane
SW'
(•)
SW':
Jane:
ele não é um vadio, não é uma pessoa tal, (.) chega em çasa, não tem comida feita.
não sei por que motivos também, >não estou entrando [nisso,]<
[mas.]
Jane:
SW':
=mas [tem] comida.
[É,]
(.)
(.)
Jane:
SW':
SW':
[(mas tem comida)]
[>mas eu não estou] entrando nessa questão<, agora, quem escuta de fora, (.) >vai
, entender que ele é a tvítíma<
((pause))
>tá entendendo,<
DATA SEGMENT 8
... agora não adianta dona Jane, se a senhora não mostrar, não der o primeiro passo,
as coisas não vão entrar, eu tô, tô sendo clara e honesta com a senhora
1
SW':
2
3
Jane:
SW':
4
SW':
não vejo de que outra forma mudar isso. aí (.) só tem uma solução pra vocês
5
6
7
SW'
Jane
Jane
(■)
.
aí então [vamos entrar] com uma- é.=
[separação]
=separação
8
9
10
11
Jane
SW'
Jane
SW'
pra tn ós uma separação.=
não. eu acho que a solução pri[meira] não é a separação, só se a senhora=
[não]
=realmente não quer que ele herde tnada, os filhos, aí sim.=
(.)
[eu concordo]
[não vejo]
(.)
120
COUPLE III: Soraia & Paulo. Sueli as social worker most of the time. March. 13. 1998.
40 minutes
DATA SEGMENT 9
1
2
SW":
Soraia:
3
4
5
6
Soraia:
Paulo:
SW":
Paulo:
e a senhora acredita nessas histórias que [contam,]
[olha,]
(.)
[eu antes] não [acredita[va]]
[(mas é é-)] [te[ssa]]
[dei]xa [deixa] ela falar (primeiro tá,)
[(tá certo)]
(.)
7 Soraia:
8 SW":
9 Soraia:
eu antes não acreditava (.) confiava muito nele=
=arram=
=mas depois que ele começou a sair muito em t o le que até parente meu assim que
não tem nada a ver assim (.) que é chegado assim e disseram pra Tmim, (.) e ai eu
fiquei assim (
) T((sei lá ( ) a vida de vocês gosto muito do negão não tenho
nada a dizer do negão, mas o negão ele te trai mesmo.))i
(.)
10 Soraia:
(
(
) todos- (.) e todas as pessoas que falam desse lutgar
) tudo igual (.) o lugar que ele Tvai.
11 Soraia:
nunca é do lado de cá, (.) é sempre pro lado da::
12 Soraia:
do Kobrasol. (.) são esses lugares que justamente: um fala o outro fala igual.
(.)
(•)
(•)
13 Soraia:
14 SW":
15 Soraia:
>eu não-< eu não confiava (
)isso ai. já tô casada com ele há dezesseis anos
pra dezessete. (.) eu não con- não ligava pro pessoal mas agora é TANta, é tanta
intriga é tanta coisa (.) né, e depois dessa agressão que ele bebe (.) que ele tentou me
matar, AÍ (.) né aí fíCOU (.) ficou diFÍCIL né,=
=urrum=
=ficou uma coisa difícil eu disse pra ele ou a gente vive legal (.) né, (.) ou então gára
de uma vez.
DATA SEGMENT 10
1
SW":
2
3
4
Paulo:
SW":
Paulo:
é::. é seu Paulo assim ó, ela mostrou que (.) ela gosta do senhor né, eu acho assim ó
(.) [por] mais que a gente não acredite em intrigas=
[um,]
= alheias [né,] mas eu acho que o senhor tá dando motivo pra ser fala[do né,]
[um,]
[ã:]
DATA SEGMENT 11
1
SW":
2
Paulo:
3
Paulo:
4
Soraia:
5
Paulo:
0 que vai acontecer é que um dia, (.) ela vai, vai desistir, ela vai deixar do senhor, ela
vai canTsar. e é isso que 0 senhor quer,
((pause))
eu não quero isso mas tem a tem tem alguns pontos também eRRAdos né,
((pause))
também,
((pause))
tfala.
((pause))
tem muitas coisas erradas também né (.) que eu que eu acho também né mas (.) às
vezes eu também não posso falar né.
(•)
121
6
7
SW":
Paulo:
o que que o senhor acha,=
=Tnão, (porque) às vezes certas coisas eu também não posso falar né, então eu às
vezes fico quieto né,=
8 SW":
=tcomo que o senhor não pode falar, não- não entendi o que o senhor quer [dizer]
9 Paulo:
[tem]
, muitas tem muitas coisas erradas (.) também.
((pause))
10 Soraia: fala,
((pause))
11 SW":
0 que, coisa do lado tdela, etrrada,
((pause))
12 Paulo:
é muitas coisas [que::]
13 SW":
14 Soraia:
[então] (vamos lá) [agora é a oportunidade pra vocês conversarem,]
[(tfala é (.) o negócio errado] (
)
(.)
15 SW":
0 que que tem errado,
16 SW":
17 Soraia:
agora vocês tão aqui [pra convertsar] pra se ententder,
[(
)]
18 Paulo:
é que eu levo (.) quer dizer
((pause))
quer dizer EU que levo (.) como diz o outro (.) eu levo tudo porque né, eu sou
homem isso e aquilo né, (.) [mas]
[(
)]
=e- eu tacho que tem (.) tem muitas coisas erradas também que tem que corrigir, ela
(•)
(.)
19 Paulo:
20 Soraia:
21 Paulo:
22 SW":
23 Paulo:
também tem que se corrigir. né,=
=0 [QUE] por exemplo (.) [não] muitas coisas (.) DIZ o que que é.
[e::]
[é:::]
((pause))
24 SW":
25 Paulo:
27 Paulo:
o que que ela tem [que corrigir]
^or exemplo,]
((pause))
por exemplo, certas coisas de de de:::
((pause))
de religião,
28 SW":
um
29 Paulo:
uma coisa que:: eu eu já já já (
) (época) de religião eu me separei do
meu do meu primeiro casamento eu me separei por causa de religião,
30 SW":
um,
31 SW":
por causa de que, o que que a sua mulher fazia.
32 Paulo:
tnão é que, só queria saber de religião.
26 Paulo:
(.)
(.)
(.)
(.)
(.)
(.)
33 SW":
34 Paulo:
35 Paulo:
36 Paulo:
e ela, o que [que] ela faz,
[e::]
não. ela às vezes não é que aquela coisa é que:: às vezes as pessoas dizem tnão, vai
em tal lugar, ou vão (.) não dá certo, entendeu. (.) eu a eu eu agora tenho ( ) eu
não quero mais saber de desse negócio de religião, ou eu sigo a minha ou >coisa<
porque (.) a gente tenta de lun lado né, mas não:: a gente não contsegue::
((pause))
não consegue aquilo que a gente objetiva. (.) na no- no lugar (né),
122
COUPLE IV: Laura & Marco, Sueli as social worker. March. 30. 1998. 15 minutes
DATA SEGMENT 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
SW":
Marco:
SW*:
SW":
Marco:
SW":
7
SW":
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Laura:
Marco:
Laura:
Marco:
SW":
Marco:
SW":
Marco:
Laura:
eu YOU ler a intimaçã- [a:::]=
[tá, tá]
=reclamação=
=0 boletim de ocorrência=
=tá=
=que: a dona::, Laura (.) registrou contra o senhor, tá, (.) eu pediria que cada um
falasse na sua vez, primeiro quando eu acabar de ler eu vou passar a palavra pra
dona Laura né, depois o senhor, pra gente conseguir conversar com calma, (.) tá,
{{she begins reading)) compareceu nesta delegacia de polícia, a vítima, nos
comunicando que é casada com o indiciado há 37 anos, (.) com quem possui 4
filhos, (.) que o mesmo sempre incomodou a vítima, (.) os filhos, e os vizinhos, (.)
que ultimamente está ficando pior, principalmente, quando ingere bebidas
alcoólicas, (.) que na data desta ocorrência o mesmo perturbou (.) e agrediu
moralmente a todos (.) é o relato.
((pause))
o quê que tá acontecendo, dona Lama,
((pause))
ah ele ^ b e, que ele é mal- muito mal criado, tudo quan[to] é nome ele diz (.) ele=
[não,]
=me ofende a mim [(
)]
[tnão, não] ( [
)]
[não. (.) o se]nhor,=
=eu sei eu sei=
=0 senhor espera ela, (.) [falar primei]ro [tá,]
[( )]
[()]
ele chega ele vai pra estra:da (.) ele vai pra estrada ele chama a minha filha de
sapatão. meu filho de ladrão (isso é alto) da vizinha.
(.)
17 Marco:
(a: mas te le falo-) (.) não. >psxiu<
18
19
20
21
22
=NÃO. primeiro [o senhor esPEra ela fa]LAR.=
[não tô falando não,]
=ladrão não tô falando tisso aí. (.) [eu não fatiei] isso.=
[ele:::]
=e ele é mal critado. >tudo quanto é palavrão ele diz< (dentro) dessa boca aí
quando ele tá bêbado.
SW":
Marco:
Marco:
Laxira:
Lama:
(•) -
(•)
23 SW":
24 Laura:
25 SW":
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Lama:
Marco:
Laura:
Marco:
SW':
SW":
Marco:
=e os seus filhos são c a tsados(.)não,=
=são.=
=são,
((pause))
ele agora (.) brigou (.) com o vizinho (.) do lado,=
=bri[gou não, que ele]=
[se desentendeu]
=(
) [{^
)]
[Ô SEU, SEU,] como é seu nome, seu [MARCO, o senhor] dá licença,=
[SEU Marco]
=tMarco.
(■)
33 SW’
34 Marco:
35 SW':
36 Marco:
a 0 senhor- faz o seguinte, eu sei que o senhor quer fatLAR, a- se o senhor quer
falar antes DEla, até a gente ttroca.=
=tácer[to.]
>[ma]s aí depois o senhor não vai poder falar ma[is< o bom.] até o mais=
[tá, tá (.) tá certo.]
123
37 SW:
38 SW^:
39 SW:
40 Marco:
=inteligente seria (.) que o senhor deixasse ela falar TUDO (.) aí o senhor guarda
TUDO na cabeça o que o senhor acha que tá EtRRADO. que não é assim.
[depois 0 senhor FALA.]
[depois 0 senhor fala.]
=porque se o senhor falar tANTES, ninguém vai lhe ouvir DEtPOIS.=
=tá bom.
(•)
56 SW":
=tá? a escolha é sua.=
=não inte[trrompa]
>[por isso] que a gente [tá dan]do=
[(°tá bom°)]
=[chan]ce< dela falar antes (.) e o senhor, >daí tfala depois dela é metlhor.<=
[tá,]
=(°sei (.) [sei°)]
[ago]ra, se o senhor interromper. (.) nós vamos trocar.
((pause))
pode falar=
=e ele fica muito agressivo quando ele bebe. e malc-. e sem bebida ele é malcriado
também (.) sabe,=
=arram=
=ele tem uma boca muito tsuja. (.) e tado quanto é palavrão ele diz. (.) el- não pode
ir uma, uma ami- a minha irmã vai lá (.) foi lá Natal (.) dar um parabéns pra mim dar
um abraço de:, de Natal, as mi- as minhas sobrinhas, (.) ele tbebe ele bota eles a
correr. (.) meu filho de Blumenau chegou, a minha nora chegou a sair (.) choTrando.
((pause))
por causa dele, que ele entrou bêbado, ele agora a gente mora (parede e meia) com o
vizinho né [( ]
)=
[ahé]
=minha prima (.) eles se desentenderam ele e o homem né, (.) e agora por causa
disso ele bebe ele cham- só chama o homem de vagabimdo, (.) fica falando do
homem na vizinhança.=
=e faz tempo (.) faz::: bastante tempo, que ele bebe?
57 SW":
58 Laura:
não,=
=ta:! toda vida.
59 SW":
60 Laura:
sempre bebeu, pESDE QUE A SENHORA (.) casou,]
[todo o lugar (.) que a gente mora,] ãrram. todo lugar que a gente
mora a gente sai corrido (.) porque ele dá em brigar com a vizinhança,=
=u[rrum]
[pessoja manda até a gente sair da ca- das casa agora, (.) eu moro nessa casa que
é da minha prima, ele já tá só brigando com o rapaz,=
=sei=
=a minha prima já disse que vai vender, aquilo ali, a gente vai ter que sair,=
=urrum=
=não sei se é vertdade, ou é por causa tdele.
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
SW>:
SW:
SW:
Marco:
SW:
SW:
Marco:
SW:
49 SW :
50 Laura:
51 SW^:
52 Laura:
53 Laura:
54 (SW"):
55 Laura:
(.)
(.)
61 SW":
62 Laura:
63
64
65
66
SW":
Laura:
SW":
Laura:
(.)
67 SW"-:
sim.
(.)
68 Laiua:
ele toda a tvida foi lun thomem, que (.) desde novo ele nunca quis trabalhar. (.) ele
trabalhava de pintor, trabalhava uma semana ficava 1 mês parado,
69 Laura:
as minhas filhas 12 anos, 11 anos, começaram a trabalhar no fogão dos toutros,
((pause))
((«// utterance in crying tone)) pra sustentar a çasa porque ele
trabalhava [uma setmana não trabalhava mais] (.) ficava na preguiça.=
[°ã (
), que tá chorando. °]
=(por) [que tá chorando mulher?]
[a (vida inteira) pra ele] arrumar [ou]tro seiviço a gente tinha que britgar=
[o:::,]
(.)
70 Laura:
71
72
73
74
Marco:
Marco:
Laura:
Marco:
124
75 Laura;
=com ele, senão a gente passava miSÉria.
(.)
76 Laura;
as minhas filhas (.) eu tenho uma filha agora em tcasa, (.) ela é quem, bem dizer que
sustenta a casa. porque ele ganha 160 reais, eu ganho 120.=
77 SW^;
=umim
78 Laura;
79 Laura;
80 Laura;
81 SW^;
82 Laura;
83 SW";
84 SW^;
85 Laura;
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
SW=;
Marco;
SW";
Laura;
SW";
Laura;
Marco;
SW";
Laura;
((pause))
ela trabalha na Zepta. (.) então ela a t gora que tirou o 2° grau, porque (ela) elas
Tnunca que puderam estudar (.) porque uma com 11, uma com 12 começaram a
trabalhar no fogão dos outros pra sustentar, porque ele trabalhava uma s e tmana
ficava 0 resto do mês ttodo parado.
((pause))
só queria tá em tcasa (.) sentado, andando, bebendo por aí, passava a mão no
pantdei;ro, (.) ia fazer farra nos tbar, chegava bêbado ainda incomodando a gente,
((pause))
tudo (que) é palavrão ele dizia (.) [é um boca suja]
[e;; ele nunca fez ã;;], nunca fez um tratamento dona
Laura, pra=
=mas [ele não] tbeibe todo dia. (.) sem bebida ele é mal criado mesmo=
[(
)]
=sim=
=não é Tsó com a bebida.
((pause))
mas ele chega a ser;;; alcootlista, assim?=
=não, [tsi, tsi]=
[ele bebe com íreqüência]=
=ele diz que [tá bêbado (quando)] quer, mas sempre ele tá >bêbado<. sábado=
[fica bêbado,]
ainda [ele] chegou bêbado=
[tsi]
=a[rram]
[ain]da chegou bêbado eu tinha fechado a porta da; (.) sala né, (.) que o; rapaz
tava dormindo no sofá, ele chegou bêbado, o filhinho do lado tava na frente tdeles
eles tinham chegado da procissão tavam convertsando. (.) ele abriu a porta sentou
no paredão da porta, (.) aí como chamou a guria de (.)t((essa guria aí é uma
tputa))'!' ele assim.
(■)
95 Marco;
96 Laura;
tã! tã! não falei [nada!]
[diss]esse,=
DATA SEGMENT 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Laura;
nã-, não dá de agüentar um homem desse, eu queria até que ele saísse de casa porque
não dá mais pra viver com ele=
Marco; =a senhora dá licença?=((/ooÂ:/«g at 5fF))
SW";
=tá, (.) [pode falar] agora=
Marco;
[dá licença,]
Marco; =agora dá licença
((pause))
Marco; eu não vou fazer mais, acabou-se. (.) já (.) não, eu estou disposto,
[pode (pode )] (na) minha palavra
(Laura); [então tá]
((pause))
Marco; (
) não vou fazer mais, não vou beber mais, (.) vou, vou até, vou até sair dali,
(.) EU vou sair, vou até (
) vou pra casa do filho dela, do meu filho, vou
pra lá, pronto, acabou-se (.) não vou, não vou incomodar mais,
(.)
9
Marco;
pode çrer que eu não vou fazer isso mais,
(•)
125
10 Marco;
0 0 a gente- a gente te- a- a gente não é (isso) a gente às vezes tem- o- a gen- eu
tenho até Tmedo senhora. (.) hoj-, essa noite eu nem tdormi.
(.)
11 Marco:
eu tenho:, eu sou assim sabe eu, (.) eu sou um cara que eu:: sou analfabeto, não sei
ler. não sei nada (.) mas eu sou, eu gosto de fazer as minhas brincadeiras,
12 Marco:
eu tgosto de fatzer as brincadeiras, eu toco gaita, brinco (.) mas eu não, não sou de
briga, mas tem hora que o cara, não sei, (.) eu chego em casa é aquela, parece que
tem uma coisa que ine, é senhora, parece que tem uma coisa que me PUxa.
13 Marco:
e eu não sou tdisso.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
eu não sou disso.=
=tá seu Marco (.) ó, brincadeira é uma coisa,=
=é. [eu] sei que é.=
[né,]
=ofensa é outra=
=eu sei que [é, mas eu]
[né, é como] a dona Laura fala,=
=é. eu sei [que é.]
[o senhor] fica ofendendo os vizinhos,=
=(°não [isso°)]
[fica] chamando palavrão dentro de casa,=
=não, eu sei [isso- isso-]
[ofende os filhos]
(.)
(.)
(.)
Marco:
SW^:
Marco
SW":
SW":
Marco
SW":
Marco
SW":
Marco
SW":
Marco
SW":
(■)
27 SW":
28 Marco:
29 Marco
30 Marco
31 Marco
32 SW":
33 Marco:
34 Marco:
35 SW":
36 Marco:
37 SW":
38 Marco:
isso [não t é brincadeira,]
[eu sei eu sei] eu sei (.) isso aí:, i- pra mim acabou-se. não faço mais. gode crer,
ela pode, ela pode dizer (.) que eu não vou fazer mais.
((pause))
nem t quero mas nem saber de bebida. (.) °acabou-se° (.) pra mim acabou-se.
((pause))
pra mim acabou-se.
((pause))
[(
)]
[tá] seu Marco (.) o que a::: dona Laura falou, que o senhor bebe sempre e costuma
[chegar bêbado em casa (.) tá,]
[não- não- não-] eu não bebo sempre senhora, eu não bebo sempre, ela tá (.) ela ela
ela isso ela tá dizendo que é- (.) eu não bebo sempre. tL Á UMA VEZ OU OUTRA
QUE EU BEbo. (.) eu não sou (.) eu não (.) sou eu não sou vicítado. quando eu vou
fazer as minhas brincadeiras, aí quando a gente toma uma coisínha,
((pause))
sabe, (.) mas eu não brigo com ninguém [não ( )]
[O QUE] QUE é 0 LÁ uma vez ou outra
pro senhor,=
=a: lá uma vez ou outra é quando eu vou fazer uma brincadeira, (.) que eu gosto de
tocar uma gaittinha, tocar um pandeitrinho, (.) vou fazer minhas brincadeiras e aí
que eu ttomo umas coisinhas (.) pra, pra gente se alegrar né, (.) mas não (.) mas eu
chego em casa parece que tem uma coisa que me que, que me, não sei, e por aí eu
não brigo com nintguém senhora, não FAço nada com ninguém, nun-mmca
ninguém brigou comigo, eu vou fazer 70 anos agora.=
=então é mentira o que ela di[sse, que o senhor brigou com o vizinho, ali,]
[não (.) não (.) (la é,) não. xiu]
(•)
40 Marco:
a um (.) lá umas coisas que ela fa- falou é verdade.
((pause))
lá umas coisas é verdade.
41 SW":
42 Marco:
0 quê que é verdade?=
=é um (.) 0 que ela falou (.) algumas coisas ali é verdade. [(
39 Marco:
(.)
)]
126
43 SW":
44
45
46
47
48
Marco:
SW":
Marco:
SW":
Marco:
49 Marco:
[não A GENTE] TEM
QUE CONVERSAR DITr EITO [POR QUE] SENÃO NÃO VAI DAR DE=
[é eu]
=CONVERSAR COM O SENHOR,=
=é eu sei=
=0 que que é VERDADE o que que é [MENtTIRA,]
[Té eu só] eu só falei assim que é:: tem tem
hora que ela diz que é: (.) que é certo, eu (.) também não sei con- não sei falar muito
sabe senhora,
((pause))
também não sei falar muito.
{{long silence, during which he breaths aloud))
SW‘:
Marco:
seu Marco (.) então o senhor (.) reconhece que pelo menos em parte ela [tá certa.]
[não, eu sei,]
eu sei que (é assim)
DATA SEGMENT 14
SW":
Marco:
SW":
Marco:
SW":
Marco:
SW":
Marco:
SW":
Marco:
SW":
Marco:
SW":
Marco:
SW":
Marco:
SW":
então a gente vai fazer assim, seu Marco,=
=°tá,°=
=se 0 senhor voltar a incomodar a dona Laura vai vim aqui=
=°tá [eu sei] °
[vai avi]sar a gente (.) a gente vai encaminhar ela pro advogado (.) o juiz vai
lhe tirar de dentro de casa (.) o senhor não vai ter garantia nenhuma.=
=°é°=
=tá? (.) o senhor não vai mais poder voltar pra çasa (.) se voltar pra casa vai ser
preso.=
=(°
>
=não pode mais entrar em casa.=
=°é eu sei disso°=
=tá?=
=°tà certo°=
=0 senhor pode achar que nós tamos falando (.) de brincadeira [mas é verdade]
[não eu sei que é] eu
sei que é (.) [a senhora não tá falando de brincadeira,]
[nós estamos fazendo.]
(.)
(
)=
=tá,
(.)
Marco:
SW":
a gente não quer o mau de vocês nós estamos aqui justamente pra ajudá-los, né (.)
então isso que a gente tá fazendo é pro senhor botar a mão na consciência [e ver o]=
[tá bom]
=que realmente tá fazendo.
Marco:
SW":
Marco:
pode deixar. =
=tá?=
=>não tem perigo<
SW":
(.)
(■)
Marco:
SW":
Marcos:
Marcos:
tem perigo não que eu[:]
[fí]camos entendidos assim,=
=graças a deus (.) é verdade
((pause))
pode deixar que (Tnão.)
(.)
SW":
Marco:
Laura:
SW":
a senhora procura: (.) realmente [tá dona Laura] [se ele] voltar a incomodar=
[não tem nada não] [tá, tá,]
=Ttá:: procuro sim.=
=tá,=
127
SW ;
ENTÃO TÁ
(.)
(
);
SW‘;
[obrigado]
[vão em paz]
APPENDIX B
B l. POLICE REPORT
B2:W RIT
B3: INTERVIEW AGENDA
B4: AUTHORIZATION TO RECORD
B5: AGREEMENT DOCUMENT
Bl
POLICE REPORT
BOLETIM DE OCORRÊNC
■=STADO DE SANTA CATARINA
oÈCRETARIA DE ESTADO DA SEGURANÇA PÚBLICA
ATO COMUNICADO
OC N»
N°
DATA
HORA
OCAL
ATA E HORA DA COMUNICAÇÃO
OMUNICANTE
OME
NDEREÇO
FONE
LOCAL/TRABALHO
•ROFISSAO
N°
JOC./IDENTIDADE
□ TESTEMUNHA
□ VÍTIMA
□ ACUSADO
UF
□ CONDUTOR
DOC.
NOME
1 Q V iT .
' O TEST.
□ IND.
FILIAÇÃO
PAI
MAC.
MAE
NAT.
ENDEREÇO
DATA NASC.
RES.
IDADE APARENTE
SEXO
PROF.
□ CASADO
□ SOLTEIRO
□ VÍÜVO
□ DESQUITADO
□ OlVORCÍADO
□ IND.
NAC.
MAE
NAT.
ENDEREÇO
DATA NASC.
RES.
IDADE APARENTE
PROF.
SEXO
□ CASADO
1 D V iT .
1 G TEST.
' Q IN D .
□ SOLTEIRO
□ VIÚVO
□ DESQUITADO
□ DIVORCIADO
GM
DOC.
FILIAÇÃO
N°
PAI
NAC.
MÃE
NAT.
ENDEREÇO
DATA NASC.
RES.
IDADE APARENTE
PROF.
SEXO
□ SOLTEIRO
□ VIÚVO
□ DESQUITADO
□ DIVORCIADO
HISTÓRICO
‘ XAMES REQUISITADOS
'ROVIDÊNCIAS
stemdido por
AvjTOR IPADE
DF
COR
NOME
□ CASADO
DF
NO
FILIAÇÃO
PAI
‘ D TEST.
□ M
COR
DOC.
NOME
1 n v iT .
□ NAO PARTICIPOU
COR
QM
QF
B2
Writ
INTIMAÇÃO NO
DO
PARA
A fim de prestar d eclarações, intimo V. S®. a com parecer a esta Delegacia
de P o líc ia
hora(s).
à(s)
no dia
LOC AL E DATA
A S S IN A TU R A
RECIBO
Declaro
ter recebido
do. dia
NOME
A S S IN A TU R A
a Intim ação
N°
à(s)
hora{s)
B3
INTERVIEW AGENDA
1. Quai o objetivo dos atendimentos? De modo se tenta resolver o problema do casai?
2. Na sua opinião, o que leva os casais a buscarem esse tipo de atendimento/apoio?
3. Como você descreveria o atendimento? Poderia dividi-lo em partes?
4. Noto que os atendimentos costumam ser finalizados com um conselho/uma
orientação. Existe algum fator que determina o modo como o conselho é dado?
5. De que maneira os casais agem ao/para exporem seus problemas? Existe alguma
estratégia interacional que parece fi-eqüente?
6. O que você faz em uma situação delicada, em que você tem que dizer coisas que não
são fáceis de serem ouvidas? Como você procura se expressar? (fala sem rodeios,
tenta dissimular?)
7. Como você descreveria o papel da assistente social nessa interação?
B4
Authorization to record
FlorianópoUs, 14 de julho de 1998.
Autorizo a pesquisadora Clara Dornelles, mestranda em Letras da Universidade Federal
de Santa Catarina (UFSC), sob orientação da Profa. Dra. Viviane M. Heberle, a utilizar
os dados que observou (notas de campo) e coletou (gravações em áudio) durante o mês
de março de 1998, junto à equipe de apoio da 6® Delegacia de Proteção à Mulher e ao
Menor de Florianópolis, em atendimentos a casais com problemas de violência no
âmbito conjugal, dos quais participei como assistente social. Sou testemunha de que
antes das gravações os participantes eram notificados a respeito da pesquisa, sendo que
a conversa só era gravada com seu consentimento. Entendo que os dados coletados
serão utilizados estritamente para fins de pesquisa acadêmica e que a pesquisadora fará
esforços a fim de assegurar a confidencialidade dos dados e proteger a identidade dos
participantes.
B5
Agreement document
ESTADO DE SANTA CATARINA
SECRETARIA DA SEGURANÇA PÚBLICA
DELEGACIA GERAL DA POLÍCIA CIVIL
6“ DELEGACIA GERAL DE POLÍCIA DA CAPITAL
BO N.o;
ATENDIMENTO DO SERVIÇO SOCIAL
I - IDENTIFICACÃO:
N O M E:.
DATA: .■■■ÍI/.A.Q
HORÁRIO: ..I0 .;-.3 Q .L ....
LOCAL:
ENDEREÇO:....... ........................................................................................................
PROFISSÃO:.... ............................................................... IDADE:
INDICIADO: ...
ENDEREÇO:
..........................................................
PROFISSÃO:
..................................... IDADE: .......
GRAU DE PARENTESCO: ........................................... ANOS: ....^.5..
N.° DE FILHOS: ........0 ....................................................
II - QUEIXA: ......................................................................................................
II! - HISTÓRICO:
rx9
£ ). jOJUb<AJU>y<x
© S -/t.
1b O . /rp
IV - PROVIDÊNCIAS:
I3^3IÕl i
.dwS>í.-vv*JL
U .\é
yN©dlM-CX Js,^. X.-f-CLtcLA. . jACtíÚXL-
..C|.a.jJL X5-V%-, IcLi-VH.tÇXj A pr<PC-Lí.
. SoJUKa.
,aXjL YVDuO
*!,■{:....x^..XXJA..Jrexu,U...±Lr.:^...C/>r^^o2.-r:i.CAja,..Cpí„vi,. . . . . 1^\-Sr^..xmÁ-/x.
A Ô ÍJU
M .
1
« X X l
Cl.
ÍL A ÍA C ^ -
/v i.
_
/0 ~ \
<1
\y . ~OBSERVAÇÃO:
yyvu_LKil/1
T y ie
yjW^o
vv©^
y-rcLAj^
-yVVwáxSo
U - C ' l - a - 'V
I ü
-WvCO-''rVVL'YxJ^<5K-<. -
lO ju ^
—'xj/'v—;_/•■—
yCLKASJV
^dsrXnrvij,
.^»-vouIa
© '
X L C ( .^ | \ e A £ M
p / O
ô
—"■—
\QX>->^'<.oy^'kx. ©
p JH f. .
-«-
-
A-/^
X X -^ r ^ '& y
O L ÍJ.
4 ^
:;tfL c i.c ^ * ^ ,.Y x ? .\© "
_9.
yC|-*-o?_
- iX j!
x rp ^
p o - i .x J U x i.
-í-í-l-
— ' ' ' nL'—^ ^ ^
/dcvve. cj-*-"
fòji.O O '- P ^
•
c íc k .
_a-
_ c L L ^ jy t«
jü d U f w
!xx~